Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9

< May 8	May 10 >

May 9[edit]

Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was keep. I am most swayed to keep based on arguments by BHG and Sam as well as the unwieldy size of categories were these to be collapsed. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do something about this and its subcats - This was nominated once previously and closed as delete for the category and all sub-cats. I don't know what happened after that. This categorization scheme does not appear to me to work very well. Categorizing MPs based on the Parliaments in which they serve results in an inordinate number of categories accumulating on MPs of any longevity. Winston Churchill is in 14 of the sub-cats. Tony Blair is in six so far. Is this really the best way to organize this information? In the previous CFD it was suggested that MPs could be organized by century, which would limit the number of categories to two at most. Another alternative would be to organize by decade, which could still result in multiple categories but not the mass of them that are cluttering some of these MP articles. Otto4711 23:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have tagged all the sub-categories, and also added a {{cfdnotice}} to the articles in Category:MPs elected in UK elections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree something needs to be done. Since very few MPs have a career in Parliament over 50 years long, categories such as 1900-1950 would mean almost all MPs would be in 1 or 2 only, whilst keeping category size relatively manageable. Johnbod 00:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Between 1900 and 1950, there were 7 general elections, including several major changes of the political landscape (1906, 1922, 1924/1929, 1931, and 1945). Fully populated, I estimate that a 1900-1950 category would have over 3,000 members. The earlier categories are currently way underpopulated (e.g. Category:UK MPs 1900-1906 has only 162 articles out of a possible total of ~700), but the combined size of the categories is already 1143 (counted with AWB), which is already starting to get unmanageable. For comparison with a more fully-populated state, I have counted 1950-2001 MPs as a total of total 2270, which is still an underestimate because the pre-1964 categories are underpopulated. That supports my estimate of 3,000 for the 1900-1950 period, because the Commons was bigger pre-1922, and the 1920s marked the collapse of one of the major parties (the Liberals), causing a lot of changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I take your points, but generally the MPs with articles will by definition be those with long, successful careers, so I think your estimates are likely to be too high. Johnbod 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think your point will have the opposite effect. We already have articles on all MPs since 1964, and I for one hope that will be extended to cover at least the whole of the 20th century (there is a lot of ongoing work on this). You are probably right that the existing articles are more likely to include the long-serving MPs, but that means that the remainder will be a lot of short-serving MPs rather than a few long-servers. That points to a lot of articles to come. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Perhaps neiter organizing by time nor by Parliament is the best choice. Looking at the categorization scheme for the U.S. Congress (not a direct comparison of course) Congresspeople aren't organized by either year or by session of Congress. Otto4711 13:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Otto, you are right that a a direct comparison is unhelpful. I suggest you take a look then at Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies, which already has more than 3500 members, and cannot readily be subcategorised geographically because unlike the US states, the boundaries of counties in England have changed markedly over the last two centuries, making historical geographical categorisation exceptionally difficult. There is no reasonable prospect of a UK equivalent of the very useful by-state subcategories of Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives. Without categorisation by parliament, the only way to find an MP through the category system will be to use the enormous (and fast-gowing) Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. See the more recent CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10#UK_MPs, where a fuller explanation was given of how these are important maintenance categories (as well as useful for analysis of parliamemt), and discussion then closed with no consensus. I am the category creator, and the categs were recreated after support at the earlier CfD for creating them with short names; the result is that although Tony Blair is in 6 of these categories (he's one of the longer-serving current MPs), they occupy less than one of the six lines of categories at the bottom of his article, so make a minimal contribution to category clutter.
Categorising by decade is not viable for MPs, because Parliaments are elected at irregular intervals which do not match decades, so that would be very hard to maintain; categorisation by parliament matches the historical record, rather than restructuring.
Winston Churchill is an exceptional case, and a poor basis for making an assessment, because his career was exceptionally long. For a more representative sample, look at the current Cabinet or at the two most recent ex-prime ministers, John Major and Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher, for example, was in 9 Parliaments, and these categories occupy 1⅓ lines of a 10-line list of categories. The reason that people like Churchill and Thatcher are in so many categories is that they did so much, but deleting all the by Parliament categories would barely dent the long list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher's ten lines of categories include two lines relating to sourcing and verification tags. Discounting them, re-organizing the Parliament categories could cut her lines to around six, which while still enormous is at least somewhat more manageable. Otto4711 13:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are talking basically of the difference between six lines and seven and-a-bit, which doesn't seem to me to be a huge difference ... and in this case it comes at the prince of removing a whole swathe of useful categories without a viable replacement system. That sounds to me like a pretty poor tradeoff, esp when the remaining categories include the likes of Category:People associated with the University of Buckingham. Is that really a more important attribute of a prime minister than her membership in particular parliaments? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated "People associated with" categories in the past as well; I think they're vague to the point of near-uselessness. All I'm saying with this nomination is that we should think about whether there is a better way to organize this information. If there's not then there's not but there is no reason not to consider the possibility. Otto4711 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to me to be a splendid example of how useful categories can be if carefully thought out and succinctly named. -- roundhouse 09:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Listify - See the debate on National League All-Stars and American League All-Stars from 19 Nov 2006. In this case, categorization of baseball players by every year in which they appeared in the All-Star game was infeasible, as players often appeared in multiple games. The resulting lists of categories in the articles for some famous baseball players (such as Hank Aaron) were so long that they were difficult to read and use for navigation. Categorization by session of parliament suffers from the same problem; people serve in multiple parliaments, and so their articles contain multiple categories. The lists of categories in individual articles are very long and difficult to read, especially for some famous people such as Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. Even though these categories have been given short names, the blizzard of capital letters and numbers are still difficult to read and hence difficult to use for navigation. Moreover, many of the articles appearing in Special:Mostcategories are articles that include multiple MP categories. This is a severe categorization problem that many people dislike. If the information is needed on Wikipedia, then these categories should be listified. (Note that the United States Congress is listed in articles, not in categories; see 110th United States Congress, for example.) If these categories are needed for maintenance, they should be moved only the talk pages. If some categorization by time period is needed, do it by century. Whatever is done, the categories should be deleted, as they are not functional. Dr. Submillimeter 09:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: the baseball categories are a poor comparison, because they were annual, whereas the average life of a 20th-century UK Parliament was 4 years, which is also twice the length of a US Congress. As per previous discussions, these categories have proved immensely useful in building coverage of MPs which has made huge progress in the last year, but is still a very long way from the comprehensive coverage of members of the US Congress.
  Many human names are ambiguous, so the lists require continual maintenance as new biographical articles are created, because proper redirecting of links is sadly a minority sport. As one of the maintainers to these lists and categories, it's very frequent to find that an article on "Sam Spade" is moved to "Sam Spade (politician)" without links being updated, and with a new article at "Sam Spade" without disambiguation links. The categories are invaluable in assisting the maintenance of he lists, because if that happens, the article can still be found using the category (I use AWB to run routine two-way consistency checks). I'm afraid that the "use lists" riposte is most likely to come from someone who has not tried to maintain such a large collection of biographical articles.
  Finally, have you any evidence that these categories are something "many people dislike"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. With more than 600 MPs in each Parliament, many of whom have similar names to each other and to MPs from other times (not to mention people who were not connected to politics at all), it is very difficult using a list to ensure that there is precisely one article on each Member. Using the categories it is made a great deal easier to spot gaps and duplicates. These categories are therefore extremely useful. Organising by decade would not be nearly so useful as changes happen at general elections, not at decades: the large number of Labour MPs who lost their seats in the 1970 election and never got back would all be included as 1970s MPs, for instance. To put it bluntly, if it works, don't fix it. Sam Blacketer 11:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I see no alternative method of categorising these so that they can be maintained properly. Also I agree with Sam above if it works, don't fix it.--padraig3uk 13:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -well thought out set of categories. I have never been terribly convinced by this "category clutter" argument. If a person is notable for a lot of different things then they are going to be in a lot of categories. So what? --Mais oui! 11:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well structured, useful set of categories. As each parliament is a "fresh start" this makes a clean a logical method of sorting. Lists would be huge (600+) for each session and harder to control and less useful. Regan123 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per Submillimeter. neutral on listification. Bulldog123 00:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful categories whose meaning is clear and yet their titles are succinct. There are lists for each session, but categories here fill a different function. Unless someone comes up with a better way of categorising MPs by time served, we need to keep this one. Warofdreams talk 23:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above comments. Dovea 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per above - An extremely easy category to use and apply to articles Kernel Saunters 12:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional junk dealers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Keep - jc37 10:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article seems to be, in the true sense of the word, a joke. Seriously. It seems to have been created to be funny, seeing as it has a character from a children's TV show who, last time I checked, doesn't deal drugs. I didn't do it. 22:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at the risk of falling victim to a whoosh, this category is for people who sell actual junk, like, salvage. Has nothing to do with drugs. Otto4711 23:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we start having categories for real junk dealers as well. Daniel Case 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Oh, I didn't understand that. The wording is odd; it makes it sound like a category for drug dealers. If that is the context, why do we need a category for people who sell trash? I didn't do it. 01:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of Category:Fictional characters by occupation Actually this looks to be a legitimate subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by occupation. For example Fred Sanford's occupation is "junk dealer", far as I know. The word junk in this context means "salvage", not slang for drugs. Dugwiki 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki. I have just added Steptoe and Son, and i'm sure that there are other articles out there which coud be included. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Everybody Loves Raymond[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contains virtually nothing but improperly categorized articles for cast and characters. The characters subcat is housed in the appropriate TV characters tree and the small amount of remaining material does not require the category. Otto4711 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, the characters, actors and episodes don't need an eponymous category for the show (there are already other subcategories for characters and episodes, and actors-by-show isn't normally done.) Dugwiki 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, why are you people obliterating ALL of the TV-show categories? Now you are making the network categories these cats. reside in and others vastly underpopulated because of these mass-deletions...PLEASE, THINK! --Wassermann 08:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Over There (TV series)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contains nothing but a soon-to-be-deleted cast members sub-cat and the show's article. The category will likely not be getting any larger. Otto4711 21:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ryan Mappin[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was speedy close, there is no such category; nomination appears to refer to the article Ryan Mappin, which has been speedd deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ryan Mappin (Profile)

Delete - This person has never played for sheffield united and never will.. if you do not believe me go to their offical site

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

Category:Match Game[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minus the improperly categorized articles on hosts, announcers and creators we are left with four articles about various iterations of the show, all of which are easily interlinked through the text. No need for the category as a navigational hub. Otto4711 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. Bulldog123 23:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Joey (TV series)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category for a cancelled series. No likelihood of expansion. Not needed for navigation. Otto4711 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, this is an unnecessary eponymous category. This was previously discussed last December at [1] when I nominated it for deletion. The result of that discussion was labelled "keep", although rereading the discussion it appears it should have been "not enough consensus". Since that discussion took place, though, we have significantly tightened up on eponymous categories in cfd, and the comments in the previous discussion that this might be a "starter category" haven't played out. It only has two items - the main article and the episodes subcategory (which is already sufficiently handled under Category:Television episodes by series. Delete as an unnecessary eponymous category for the show. Dugwiki 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ellen (TV series)[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. Sam Blacketer 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absent the improperly categorized cast and crew articles, the three remaining articles are easily interlinked through the main Ellen article. No need for this category. Otto4711 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, why are you people obliterating ALL of the TV-show categories? Now you are making the network categories these cats. reside in and others vastly underpopulated because of these mass-deletions...PLEASE, THINK! --Wassermann 06:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this category is currently the child of two parents (Ellen has two mommies?) Category:Categories named after television series and Category:LGBT-related television programs. It is not in a category for its originating network. The show article, Ellen (TV series), is in the network shows category for ABC and also in the LGBT-related programs cat. Deleting this category does not result in the depopulation of either of those two categories. If the show article belongs in additional categories, it can be placed there as appropriate. Otto4711 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Otto's arguments are sound. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Extras (TV series)[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. Sam Blacketer 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category has nothing but a characters subcat that I just made and populated and the show's article. No need for this category for navigation. Otto4711 19:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Mayors of places in New York[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: no rename. Sam Blacketer 09:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of places in New York to Category:Mayors of cities and villages in New York

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. While this follows the general trend of subcats of Category:Mayors of places in the United States, I propose this renaming because only cities and villages in New York have mayors (Towns, our other category of municipality, have supervisors as their executive). I would suggest renaming all the other state subcats as appropriate for their municipal incorporation schemes (Ohio, with which I'm also familiar, could also go with "cities and villages" since townships there have no executive, but not all cities in that state have a mayor-council government as the state law allows for city commisssions)

I would also suggest that some term other than "places" be used, as it is far too broad and informal a term. Daniel Case 17:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't follow the rationale for this. In either case the supervisors wouldn't be in the category, so I don't see what the gain is for using an irregular form. Mangoe 18:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's no need for the category names to be a commentary on what type of places have mayors, it's unnecessarily complicated and untidy. Postlebury 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Pleaces" was deliberately chosen since it can apply naturally to anywhere and any combination of, well, places within a region. It saves having to make different combinations for different set-ups so that we don't end up with, say, "Mayors of cities, towns, boroughs, townships, villages, municipalities and counties in X". Sure, places is a broad term - deliberately, for that very reason. it may be broad, but there will only be specific places that have mayors in any region - and those types of places will vary from place to place. The splecifics of the differences between NY and Ohio mentioned give a very clear indication of why having a set standard like this makes a lot of sense. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is just no need for this. If it is done for the U.S., it should also be done for the rest of the world, but what on earth is the point? Haddiscoe 09:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per discussion above. Different jurisdictions around the world will have mayors for different classes of settlement, but the whole point of the standardised word "places" is to avoid having guess which when using the category system. The nominator could include this info in a explanation in the category text, or in an article, but there is nothing to be gained by using the category name to convey this degree of detail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination as it seems consensus is firmly on this usage (But see Category:Mayors of municipalities in Puerto Rico ... is there a reason for this exception?). I still don't see what wouldn't be conveyed by just "municipalities", as that refers specifically to something that exists as a legal entity, making its mayor an official title rather than just something ceremonial. Daniel Case 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Food for thought. Does this necessarily make sense when we do recognize different types of municipal incorporation within a state in our categorization scheme for the communities themselves? (cf. Category:Cities in New York, Category:Villages in New York, Category:Towns in New York? Daniel Case 18:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Why use a long and less inclusive word like municipalities when we have a short one that will do? The purpose of a category is to group relate articles to facilitate navigation, not to stick a label on the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Surreply. Not all places have mayors; almost all municipalities do. Compared to the alternatives I could think of, "municipality" is rather elegant. Daniel Case 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply Please read the article municipality: the term has very different meanings in different countries, and would probably be inappropriate in some of them, so it could not be used as a standard name for these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point taken. I still wish the language offered us a better term. Daniel Case 12:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on municipality This article is problematic in the extreme. Nearly all of the non-English-speaking countries have their own terms. Assigning "municipality" as an English translation of these terms is supported by no citations whatsoever; indeed, it seems the case that the terms should in general go untranslated. There's no reason not to stick the the ENglish meaning of the word. Mangoe 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Central Florida athletics categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rename of all athletics-related categories for the University of Central Florida, which brands itself for athletics purposes as "UCF". Reason: The school has VERY recently dropped "Golden" from its athletic nickname, and now uses simply "Knights". — Dale Arnett 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gangs and criminal organisations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was no consensus. Conscious 08:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The categories related to gangs and criminal organisations are hopelessly, terribly badly organised, and way too complex (over-categorised). I'd go as far as to say it's criminal! ;)

I've placed some proposals here but if you can do better feel free.

First batch. "Historical gangs" and "current gangs". I have no idea why we should want to categorise these seperately, and am quite concerned about who gets to decide what is "historical". Many of these cats are nearly empty, too. I wouldn't oppose merging them all upstream to Category:Street gangs of the United States or similar (except London of course) but for now here's the list with my proposals:

Comment. These categories are intended to create distinction between gangs no longer active, and specifically to serve as a parent category for historical criminals in specific cities, and modern day street gangs such as the Crips, Bloods, Vice Lords, etc. MadMax 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical gangs of Baltimore to Category:Baltimore gangs
Category:Historical gangs of Chicago to Category:Chicago gangs
Category:Historical gangs of Detroit to Category:Detroit gangs
Category:Historical gangs of London to Category:London gangs
Category:Historical gangs of New Orleans to Category:New Orleans gangs
Category:Historical gangs of New York City to Category:New York City gangs
Category:Historical gangs of San Francisco to Category:San Francisco gangs
Category:Historical gang members of New York City to Category:Gang members
Category:Historical criminals of New York City to Category:American criminals

Comment. These are not redundant categories and, despite a low number of articles on several of these, this same argument is applied when similarly named lists are created (see List of historical gang members of New York City, which admittedly may need to be moved to Historical criminals of New York City given its size). Historical gang members of New York in particular is a subcategory of Historical gangs in New York City and Historical criminals in New York City. MadMax 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More merging and renaming based on near empty categories, redundancy, etc:

Category:Organized crime groups to Category:Criminal organizations
Category:Triad groups to Category:Triad
Category:Irish gangs to Category:Street gangs (note also that this category is misnamed; it's not gangs from Ireland it's Irish-American)

Comment. There is a distinction between criminal organizations (ex. Hells Angels vs. organized crime (ex. Genovese crime family). However, your points regarding Triad and Irish gangs are correct in my view. MadMax 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion; near empty categories, over-categorisation:

Category:Vice Lords
Category:Dalton gang
Category:Gangs by ethnicity
Category:Gang members by ethnicity

Comment. Gangs by ethnicity and Gang members by ethnicity are legitimate parent categories used for street gangs composed of certain ethnicity as is typical in the inner cities of the United States. Similarly, individual gang members of the Vice Lords and Dalton gang are notable to include a category. MadMax 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be populated by the new categories created above:

Category:Gangs by location

If we do this, we'd have a neater set of categories although it would still be far from perfect.

--kingboyk 17:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename/Merge, Oppose Deletions The distinction between historical and current gangs seems murky. There aren't so many gangs (thank goodness) that all the gangs in a locality could not be put n one category. Mangoe 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't look at this far enough the first time around. There's obviously a use for the ethnic categories (though at the moment they aren't being used). Mangoe 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, except I'd keep "Vice Lords." The Lords are a very complex organization, and having the various "sub-gangs" under one category makes sense. Otherwise, I like this plan.--Mike Selinker 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, could you add a little blurb to the category description please, and check that it's properly populated and categorised? I'm afraid this isn't an issue I know much about. --kingboyk 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind. I went ahead and looked at the articles, and what's in there is the main article, two rappers (one whose article doesn't even mention her gang affiliation), and a poorly sourced stub about one of the component gangs. So let's delete this one too.--Mike Selinker 20:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All of these categories were either created as subcategories to clear up the huge backlog of Category:Gangs. These are legitimate and well documented distinctions, especially of the "Gangs of New York" era, and applies to similar areas of criminology such as Category:Organized crime (see Category:American mobsters ans similarly named categores). Crime from an historical viewpoint has been well established in books such as Herbert Asbury's Informal Histories of the Underworld series and Patrick Downey's "Gangster City: The History of the New York Underworld", "The American Way of Crime: A Documentary History" by Moquin, Wayne, Charles Lincoln Van Doren, "Violence in America" by Ted Robert Gurr, "Comparative Histories of Crime" by Barry S. Godfrey, Graeme Dunstall and Clive Emsley among others. If the nominator feels the general category is unorganized (indeed his points on "Irish gangs" is valid) such major changes could have been discussed beforehand with knowledgable editors at WP:CRIME and related projects. MadMax 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're discussing it here, the usual venue for recategorisation discussion, and you found it. What's the problem? On a more serious note: can you and your knowledgeable colleagues propose some other changes then? It certainly wasn't well organised; I've already removed various redundancies and even an empty category, and there's a certain amount of overcategorisation going on. If my scheme isn't acceptable (and, in Wikipedia categorisation terms, I still think it has some merit) please offer us an alternative. --kingboyk 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you're nominating a wide range of of articles and parent categories to be either moved or deleted because one or two misnamed categories have been created. Such a drastic change of naming conventions which have been in place for quite some time will effect other similarly related categories and, given editors such as User:Stefanomione have worked for years in reorganizeing and establishing naming convention, I would think discussing the issue with editors regularly involved in editing crime related subjects (or at least nominating the related WikiProjects of your intentions) would be considered considerate. I certainly don't object to a reorganization of crime-related articles, however what you're proposing is the removal of ethnic and historical related categories regardless of the fact that this will in effect restore the backlog on Category:Gang and Street gangs despite prior deletion discussions that establish ethnicity is relevent in organized crime and its related subjects. MadMax 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral to rename, oppose deletion I see no compelling reason to oppose renaming of some categories, but also I think the ethnic gang categories should be kept. It is not over-categorization. Organized crime/gangs that are dominated by one ethnic group often have similarities, like the Sicilian Mafia and the New York Mafia are Italian gangs, Bloods and Crips are mostly African-American, etc. Many would consider ethnic categorization to be racist, but it's based on facts and these categories don't actually make any race feel worse (all nationalities have gangs/crimes). Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposal for sweeping changes without prior discussion. This is a complicated hierarchy that probably does need some work. However these issues need more discussion before there's a consensus. If this CfD fails I suggest we continue the discussion at Category talk:Street gangs One particular objection I have is with deleting the ethnic categories. Street gangs are notorious for being ethnically-oriented. And nowadays they often span cities or even nations, so perhaps ethnicity is more important than location as a categorization. -Will Beback · † · 22:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It will make the lists managable and the information will be easier to find, but I would keep the Vice Lords as they have a fairly complex gang going on there. Other than that: Great Idea! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The difference between "modern" and "historical" is that if I am looking to learn about al capone and his historical influence on the city of Chicago, this is a totally separate line of inquiry than if I am looking to learn about gangs that are still active in a certain region. This proposed change is a lot of work and I have not seen any compelling argument for erasing the distinction. MPS 21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another useful thing we might do is have convert some categories into lists to learn to discern the best way to organized and preserve the gang information. MPS 21:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Female empowerment songs[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. Sam Blacketer 14:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arbitrary categorization with vague, POV inclusion criteria. Similar to the deleted Gay anthems category. Otto4711 16:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far too vague, and incapable of any NPOV definition. Depending on POV, the category could either require the presence of Stand By Your Man or be incompatible with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. "I Am Woman" is honestly the only song that would unambigously fit this category, and we can't have categories that would only have one article. Daniel Case 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoplessly subjective. Mangoe 18:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Postlebury 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bulldog123 00:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Orson[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge the two cover art categories to Category:Orson (band) images, keep albums and songs, no consensus on the parent category. Sam Blacketer 19:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orson albums

Category:Orson albums' cover art

Category:Orson singles' cover art

Category:Orson songs

Upmerge to Category:Orson. Overcategorisation, only 1 to 5 articles/images in each. - Nabla 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two cover art categories together and rename to Category:Orson (band) images; Keep albums and songs; delete Category:Orson - The cover art categories should be handled by a single category named "images" in line with other similar categories. The albums and songs subcats are part of extensive categorization schemes under Category:Songs by artist and Category:Albums by artist and should be maintained regardless of size. The category for the band itself, however, is unnecessary to serve as a navigational aid for the small amount of material in the category, which can easily be interlinked through the main article Orson (which itself should probably be moved to Orson (band)). Otto4711 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do what Otto says, except I have no opinion on the umbrella category.--Mike Selinker 16:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, if more people would just subscribe to the above philosophy, What a Wonderful World it would be! ;-) Otto4711 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Orson and merge as per Otto above As noted by Otto above, it looks like Category:Orson is an unnecessary eponymous category. The albums and songs subcategories are already part of a large existing scheme, images are normally handled as an image subcategory, and everything else can be navigated from the main article. Delete Category:Orson and merge as recommended by Otto above. Dugwiki 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the art categories, keep the others. All albums should be in an "albums by" category; it's the way we've aways done it, it's the way WP:ALBUMS likes it, and it makes for the best navigation and organisation scheme. Same goes for songs. That these particular categories don't have much in them is neither here nor there. --kingboyk 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the parent category and art categories; keep the album and song categories per conventions. -Sean Curtin 06:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Maps and Category:Cartography[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are terribly confused. I can see having a category for articles about specific maps, and maybe a category about types of maps. As it stands, these categories overlap considerably, and lots of articles under Category:Maps should instead be filed solely under Category:Cartography. Mangoe 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both as they are different and essential. Perhaps you could do some reorganisation? Haddiscoe 09:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per Haddiscoe; be WP:BOLD... Carlossuarez46 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have have taken the advice above and rectified the categories in question by taking Category:Maps as listing particular maps, and Category:Cartography as listing articles on map making in general, including types of maps. This listing can be closed. Mangoe 12:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both -- I've just cross-categorized them...that solves the problem. --Wassermann 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Athletes to play in National Football League & Major League Baseball[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. Sam Blacketer 19:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Athletes to play in National Football League & Major League Baseball to Category:Athletes who have played in the National Football League and Major League Baseball

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current title implies that the persons listed are future players ("to play"), has poor grammar (missing "the"), and contains an ampersand ("&"). The proposed title eliminates all three problems.Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not clear whether the refers to category "players who have played in either football or baseball" or "players who have played in both football and baseball". If it's the former, it's a superfluous parent category, and if it's the latter, is it really a notable intersection? Either way, if this category is not deleted, the name needs further clarification.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or upmerge If renamed, then rename to Category:Athletes who have played in both the National Football League and Major League Baseball. This clarifies that it's for people who have played both sports. I also agree with BHG that this may not be a significant enough intersection to warrant a category. If not, then Upmerge to Category: Sportspeople of multiple sports. Otto4711 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Also would make a good list, but I don't like the concept of having Category: Sportspeople of multiple sports split by every two possible intersections of sports and/or leagues.--Mike Selinker 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely listify if it's not already. Otto4711 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category: Sportspeople of multiple sports per Otto4711 and Mike Selinker. Mike's points about that category being split by every two possible permutations is an important one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Earthless science fiction[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - the term "Earthless science fiction" does not appear to have any wide currency outside Wikipedia and may be a neologism. I question the wisdom of categorizing by a term with no sourcing to indicate that it's commonly accepted as a recognized science fiction theme or genre. Otto4711 15:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Except for one reference that made little or no sense, I could find no references through Google that didn't trace back to this category. It's not even clear what it means. Mangoe 15:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A Google search on "earthless science fiction -Wikipedia" shows that the term is not in common use to describe science fiction. This is a neologism; it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Under my interpretation of the name, it could refer to sf taking place in a parallel universe or timeline in which the Earth was never formed. I'm sure there's some, but nowhere near enough notable enough to merit articles to populate a category. Daniel Case 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I thought this was for SciFi where there is no Earth/Terrans involved. (ie. Star Wars, or Nightfall) 132.205.44.134 17:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lutheran Primates of Sweden[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 00:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lutheran Primates of Sweden to Category:Archbishops of Uppsala

Merge, Another utterly superfluous primates category; the Archbishop of Uppsala is ex officio the Lutheran Primate of Sweden. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The title "Archbishop of Uppsala" is much more likely to be used to describe these people. Dr. Submillimeter 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If it is appropriate and helpful to categorize Christian Primates at all, then it is so for ALL and not just for some. Yes, they are the "Archbishop of Uppsala." But that does not tell the whole story. "Primates of Sweden" says much more than just that they are Archbishops. Pastorwayne 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You misunderstand the nomination: this is not a proposal to cease to categorise them as primates, just a proposal to remove an unnecessary layer in category hierarchy. Category:Archbishops of Uppsala should be a subcat of Category:Lutheran primates, removing the intermediate Category:Lutheran Primates of Sweden. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I have not misunderstood. My contention is that to categorize a Primate as a Primate says more than simply acknowledging their status as Archbishops. Primate acknowledges comparitive category to other Nationwide primacies (such as Primates of the Netherlands or Primates of Germany, etc.). Since the archdiocese of Uppsala, in this case, does NOT cover the entire Nation, it is more helpful to also note they are Primates over the entire Nation, not just their archdiocese. Pastorwayne 12:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - PW, you do indeed misunderstand, because you appear not to understand how the categorisation system works. Once Category:Archbishops of Uppsala is included in Category:Lutheran primates, then the articles in Category:Archbishops of Uppsala are categorised as primates.
      What you appear to be trying to achieve is not categorisation, but tagging -- sticking a label on an article. The purposes of categorisation is not to label articles; categorisation exists to facilitate navigation between related articles. It would of course be quite appropriate to ensure that the lead para of every article in these categories (and in the category itself) describes them both as the Archbishop and as primate, but you should not be trying to use the category system to achieve that. However, I think I'm beginning to understand more clearly why you have created such massive numbers of superfluous categories :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - (Neutral to the CfD topic) - I think this post is rather insightful. And this is not the first time I've encountered a WIkipedian who had the two concepts confused. Perhaps we need a banner with red flashing lights making it clear that categories are mostly for grouping, and ease of linking to that group from a page. If someone wants to "tag" a page, then an internal link is much preferred. - jc37 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BHG Johnbod 07:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BHG. As the Archbishop of Uppsala has also been the Primate of Sweden since 1164 these 2 categories are (or should be) identical. (If there is anyone pre-1164 then the position would change.) -- roundhouse 18:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Order of Logohu[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Order of Logohu to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Papua New Guinea

Merge - miniscule category, unlikely to expand to any degree, there seems to be no need to subdivide the parent cat especially given the amount of overlap between the categorized material. Otto4711 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is also Category:Grand Companions of the Order of Logohu, which appears to be the category for holders of the order, so I see no need for this intermediate category. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK, I created this. I thought there might be a need for categories for the other memberships, lower than Grand Companions, but I no longer think so. However, I do think Category:Grand Companions of the Order of Logohu should remain. --Bduke 01:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Polish primates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 00:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Polish primates to Category:Archbishops of Gniezno

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The Archbishop of Gniezo is ex officio the Primate of Poland: see List of archbishops of Gniezno and primates of Poland. The category would be more usefully named by the best-known title, which is Archbishop. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - The title "Archbishop of Gniezno" is much more likely to be used to describe these people. Dr. Submillimeter 16:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If it is appropriate and helpful to categorize Christian Primates at all, then it is so for ALL and not just for some. Yes, they are the "Archbishop." But that does not tell the whole story. "Primates of X" says much more than just that they are Archbishops. Pastorwayne 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You misunderstand the nomination: this is not a proposal to cease to categorise them as primates, just a proposal to remove an unnecessary layer in category hierarchy. Category:Archbishops of Gniezno should be a subcat of Category:Roman Catholic primates, removing the intermediate Category:Polish primates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I have not misunderstood. My contention is that to categorize a Primate as a Primate says more than simply acknowledging their status as Archbishops. Primate acknowledges comparitive category to other Nationwide primacies (such as Primates of the Netherlands or Primates of Germany, etc.). Since the archdiocese of Gniezno, in this case, does NOT cover the entire Nation, it is more helpful to also note they are Primates over the entire Nation, not just their archdiocese. Pastorwayne 12:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - PW, you do indeed misunderstand, because you appear not to understand how the categorisation system works. Once Category:Archbishops of Gniezno is included in Category:Roman Catholic primates, then the articles in Category:Archbishops of Gniezno are categorised as primates.
      What you appear to be trying to achieve is not categorisation, but tagging -- sticking a label on an article. The purposes of categorisation is not to label articles; categorisation exists to facilitate navigation between related articles. It would of course be quite appropriate to ensure that the lead para of every article in these categories (and in the category itself) describes them both as the Archbishop and as primate, but you should not be trying to use the category system to achieve that. However, I think I'm beginning to understand more clearly why you have created such massive numbers of superfluous categories, and why you have so frequently placed an article in both a category and its parent. Please take time to read and digest WP:CAT. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod 07:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Polish Primates is incorrect in any case (Primates of Poland). I might prefer Category:Archbishops of Gniezno (Poland) to assist those unaware that Gniezno is in Poland. I also think the above remarks by BHG re 'tagging' explain to some extent PW's astonishing passion for category creation. -- roundhouse 11:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- PS In the spirit of fairness, google gives overwhelming support to "Primate of Poland" (21,000) versus "Archbishop of Gniezno" (3) or "bishop of Gniezno" (36). -- roundhouse 11:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

More Anglican primates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 00:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primates of the Church in Wales to Category:Archbishops of Wales

Category:Primates of the Anglican Church of the Province of West Africa to Category:Archbishops of West Africa

Category:Primates of the Anglican Church in the Province of the West Indies to Category:Archbishops of the West Indies

Category:Primates of the Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea to Category:Archbishops of Papua New Guinea

Category:Primates of the Anglican Church of the Province of South East Asia to Category:Archbishops of South East Asia

Category:Anglican Primates of the Church of Nigeria to Category:Archbishops of Nigeria

Category:Primates of the Anglican Church of Uganda to Category:Archbishops of Uganda

Category:Primates of the Anglican Church of the Province of Melanesia to Category:Bishops of Melanesia

Category:Anglican Primates of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui to Category:Archbishops of Hong Kong

Merge/Rename, these categories all relate to a single post of "Archbishop of X", who is the ex-officio holder of the title of "primate". The noninatoon is to merge these primate categories into an Archbishop category where that exists, otherwise to rename them. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note So far as I am aware, these Archbishop titles are not used for other denominations. However, if editors feel that more clarity would be useful, we could name the new categories "Anglican Archbishops of ...". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The names using "archbishop" are much more commonly used than the names using "primates". The "primate" names will just confuse people. Dr. Submillimeter 16:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename People will start looking for "Anglican vertebrates" and "Anglican arthropods". Daniel Case 17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Or people could look for "Jewish primates" and "Muslim primates" and "Buddhist primates", oh, and "atheist primates", and so on. Dr. Submillimeter 22:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course they will NOT! If you look closely, these are all about Primate (religion). Pastorwayne 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If it is appropriate and helpful to categorize Christian Primates at all, then it is so for ALL and not just for some. Yes, they are the "Archbishop." But that does not tell the whole story. "Primates of X" says much more than just that they are Archbishops. Pastorwayne 19:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You misunderstand the nomination: this is not a proposal to cease to categorise them as primates, just a proposal to rename the categories. They will all remain sub-categories of Category:Anglican primates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I have not misunderstood. My contention is that to categorize a Primate as a Primate says more than simply acknowledging their status as Archbishops. Primate acknowledges comparitive category to other Nationwide primacies (such as Primates of the Netherlands or Primates of Germany, etc.). Since the archdioceses do NOT cover the entire Nation(s), it is more helpful to also note they are Primates over the entire Nation(s), not just their archdiocese. Pastorwayne 12:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - PW, you do indeed misunderstand, because you appear to fundamentally misunderstand how the categorisation system works. Once Category:Archbishops of xxxxx is included in Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion, then the articles in Category:Archbishops of xxxx are categorised as primates.
      What you appear to be trying to achieve is not categorisation, but tagging -- sticking a label on an article. The purposes of categorisation is not to label articles; categorisation exists to facilitate navigation between related articles. It would of course be quite appropriate to ensure that the lead para of every article in these categories (and in the category itself) describes them both as the Archbishop and as primate, but you should not be trying to use the category system to achieve that. However, I think I'm beginning to understand more clearly why you have created such massive numbers of superfluous categories, and why you have so frequently placed an article in both a category and its parent. Please take time to read and digest WP:CAT. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - BHG, indeed I do NOT misunderstand! Perhaps YOU do? My purpose for categorizing these articles as has been done is precisely what you are suggesting the purpose of cats is: "categorisation exists to facilitate navigation between related articles." Your proposition will be fine if ALL of the Primates are Archbishops. Whereas there is a wide variety of titles for Primates, it is most helpful to cat them ALL as Primates also. Someone looking for/at Primates, comparing them, etc. may not think to look at Archbishops (or Bishops or whatever else). However, they WILL be likely to look at all cats that are of Primates. Since these ARE Primates, it makes perfect sense to cat them as such. Pastorwayne 20:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - PW, I'm increasingly concerned about how little you appear to understand of how wikipedia categorisation works. To find these people through the primates hierarchy of categories, just go Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion; the primates will be listed either there or is subcategories. To be categorised as primates, it is irrelevant whether the names of those subcategories include the word "primate" or the word "archbishop," or are called "Electric blue hamsters"; all that matters is solely they are subcategories of Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion.
        To see how this works in another field, take a look at Category:Prime ministers, which naturally includes lots of subcats entitled "Prime Minister", but also others labelled "Chancellors", "Presidents of the Executive Council", "Taoisigh", and "Minister-presidents". Please do read WP:CAT to understand how this works.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a completely foolish suggestion regarding Anglican Primates. Of all the Christian denominations, the Anglicans use Primates the most consistently! For example, please see Peter Akinola, who is completely accurately categorized as a Primate. Indeed, his article mentions his status as a Primate well before any mention of his being an Archbishop. Primate seems equally (if not more so) as important a cat as Archbishop. Pastorwayne 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PW, please step back a bit, and please try to read what I have written.
  First, I fully accept that these people are primates, but in all the cases listed here, the posts of Archbishop and Primate are inseparable: the same person holds both titles, without exception. What you are trying to create here is, and will always be, a set of category pairs with absolutely identical memberships. This just creates maintenance headaches and category clutter, and impedes navigation rather than assisting it.
  One point you appear to be still missing is that if these mergers and renamings are done, all these articles will still categorised as primates. Do you understand that? Go to Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion, and you will find Category:Archbishops of Walesand Category:Bishops of Melanesia; there is no need to create an intermediate or duplicate category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - BHG, what it seems is that YOU are creating superfluous cats. The Primate cats are already well established. But you want to create new, not-yet-existing Archbishop cats. That is what makes no sense. Why not just leave them as Primates! In the Anglican communion, especially, the Primate title is an extremely common and important title, even more important than the Archbishop title (in these cases). Pastorwayne 10:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - PW, once again, please try to read what has been written; this nomination reduces the number of categories, rather than increasing them (the new Archbishop categories will be renamings, not additions). As to which titles are more common, try this; 1,800 ghits for "Primate of the Church in Wales" or 7,460 ghits for "Primate of Wales", or [38,000 ghits for "Archbishop of Wales". --06:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nom Johnbod 07:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. If we take the first one Category:Primates of the Church in Wales is has one subcat, Category:Archbishops of Wales, and in fact each is a subcat of the other as they are the SAME THING. I myself was brought up in the Church of England and have never heard the word Primate used; Rowan Williams is invariably described as the Archbishop of Canterbury, not the Primate of All England. (I see the Archbishop of York is the Primate of England.) Wikipedia should use the more commonly used term, namely Archbishop. (It might be that in Nigeria the term Primate is more widely used.) Google: "Archbishop of Wales" - 38,300; "Primate of the Church in Wales" - 14; "Primate of the Anglican Church in Wales" - 3. -- roundhouse 11:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Primates of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 00:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa to Category:Archbishops of Cape Town

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town is ex-officio the Primate of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, and is better known as the Archbishop. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - The term "Archbishop of Cape Town" is much more likely to be used to describe these people. Dr. Submillimeter 12:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If it is appropriate and helpful to categorize Christian Primates at all, then it is so for ALL and not just for some. Yes, they are the "Archbishop." But that does not tell the whole story. "Primates of X" says much more than just that they are Archbishops. Pastorwayne 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You misunderstand the nomination: this is not a proposal to cease to categorise them as primates, just a proposal to rename the category. It will remain a sub-category of Category:Anglican primates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I have not misunderstood. My contention is that to categorize a Primate as a Primate says more than simply acknowledging their status as Archbishops. Primate acknowledges comparitive category to other Nationwide primacies (such as Primates of the Netherlands or Primates of Germany, etc.). Since the archdiocese of Cape Town, in this case, does NOT cover the entire Nation, it is more helpful to also note they are Primates over the entire Nation, not just their archdiocese. Pastorwayne 12:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - PW, you do indeed misunderstand, because you appear not to understand how the categorisation system works. Once Category:Archbishops of Cape Town is included in Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion, then the articles in Category:Archbishops of Cape Town are categorised as primates.
      What you appear to be trying to achieve is not categorisation, but tagging -- sticking a label on an article. The purposes of categorisation is not to label articles; categorisation exists to facilitate navigation between related articles. It would of course be quite appropriate to ensure that the lead para of every article in these categories (and in the category itself) describes them both as the Archbishop and as primate, but you should not be trying to use the category system to achieve that. However, I think I'm beginning to understand more clearly why you have created such massive numbers of superfluous categories, and why you have so frequently placed an article in both a category and its parent. Please take time to read and digest WP:CAT. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Google gives 25 hits for "Primate of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa" and 38800 for "Archbishop of Cape Town". This is not a narrow margin. -- roundhouse 01:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod 07:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Court TV shows[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Shows that play on the Court TV network. We don't usually categorize shows by the network they play on (among others because shows can play on a variety of networks, especially if they go international, hence this is not a defining characteristic). >Radiant< 12:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The article on the only entry in the category says that the show is "produced by Medstar Television, in association with Court TV Original Productions", so this may regarded as categorisation by producer rather than by broadcaster. However we do not appear to have other TV-show-by-producer categories, and in any case his one has only one entry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but restrict to Court TV original productions (changing my !vote after discussion below). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Um, yes, Radiant, Wikipedia does... Try researching before you add a CfD next time, eh? -Eep² 13:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television series should only be categorized under the network of first run. Radiant is correct that we do not categorize TV shows on the basis of where they are syndicated. Otto4711 13:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we have Category:Television series by studio. Perhaps we should rename to Category:Court TV productions or something similar and restrict the category to thos shows which the network is directly involved in producing. Note that additional articles have been added to the category since the nomination. Otto4711 13:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restrict to Court TV original productions As noted above Wikipedia does categorize shows by their original producing network. So the category should be kept to house shows that are original Court TV productions (not syndicated from other networks). Dugwiki 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per conventions of Television series by network, restrict as specified by Dugwiki. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Native American people and Category:Native American people of the Indian Wars[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: no renaming. Sam Blacketer 14:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every category in Category:Native American people uses the term "Native Americans" rather than "Native American people", so I suggest renaming these two for consitency. >Radiant< 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Category:Native American people is the parent, so it is a different type of category from its occupational subcategories, and should follow different conventions. The nation parent categories are better comparatives and they use "people". Also, there are several subcategories of Category:Native Americans that use "People". Category:Native American people of the Indian Wars just sounds better than the alternative. AshbyJnr 20:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AshbyJnr. Haddiscoe 09:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AshbyJnr Bulldog123 00:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional drug users[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On April 25th, the Category:Fictional drug addicts was nominated for deletion. Arguments in the debate include that it's subjective, not a defining characteristic, very much a defining characteristic according to other people, excessively broad, explicitly covered, not permanent, and/or strange. My initial thought was that renaming it from "addicts" to the better-defined "users" would solve most of the problems, but it was later pointed out to me that it doesn't necessarily help. So I'm putting it up here for wider discussion. Is this name better? Or is the previous name better? Or should we delete it altogether? >Radiant< 11:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Under its current name it's far too broad an inclusion standard. The current name makes no distinction between users of illegal drugs, legal drugs such as nicotine or alcohol, legal drugs used illicitly, etc. Under its previous name "Fictional drug addicts," it suffered from all the same arbitrariness as other similar categories for fictional characters by medical condition such as fictional alcoholics. Otto4711 13:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with all the fictional trope categories, I think there is a need to use the category to label fictional characters where the trope is a defining characteristic. There can be no doubt that there are many characters where drug use or addiction is a defining feature, and intended to be such by the author (the quintessential example being Sherlock Holmes). I didn't find the "addict" character too subjective, because we're dealing with fictional characters where the author generally makes such things explicit, though it may be that it is a closer call with some of the "pop" culture categorizations of characters from TV shows and the like. I am content with either name, but see reason to keep a category for this stock characteristicA Musing 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the sake of argument, there can likewise be no doubt that there are many characters where drug use or addiction is just something added to the character as a background touch, but is otherwise irrelevant. This applies for instance to any story or setting where drugs are exceedingly common, e.g. Pulp fiction or Cyberpunk or even the Ship of Magic trilogy. >Radiant< 15:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid I haven't seen or read either of the works or read any Cyberpunk - but it strikes me you are making one of two arguments with the question: (1) that some works are so characterized by "drug culture" that the fact that any one individual within the work uses drugs does not differentiate him or her from other characters within the work - but hasn't the author chosen to define the entire work with drugs? Isn't this like saying there are so many English characters in Shakespeare that their nationality is meaningless? (2) that in some way shape or form there may be instances where the fact that a character is a drug user is not a defining feature - but this wouldn't mean the category would not be defining for other characters and would logically undermine absolutely every category, especially in the fictional characters area, because there are always inappropriate people to put in a category and there are always borderline cases (e.g., is T.S. Eliot an American or English author?) and there will always be cases where the category is not defining but could still be applied (e.g., nationality was not particularly defining to Rumi, yet much effort is put into categorizing him by nationality).A Musing 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Drug user" is too broad a phrase. This could include characters who were one-time users or characters who appear to be habitual users. This and other variants on the category have always required the editors to make subjective judgments about which characters may qualify, which has always been problematic, particularly concerning original research issues. The category should be deleted outright. Dr. Submillimeter 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or Revert to the more specific "Drug Addicts". Ideally, I'd prefer the latter. Drug users is addmittedly a bit more broad, covering a hard-core heroin addict or someone who smoked weed once and didn't like it. I do think being a drug addict is a defining characteristic for some characters such as Charlie Pace and Sara Tancredi and therefore I think this category should continue to exist in some form. Had I known it was up for deletion, I would have opposed deleting the fictional alcoholics category for the same reason. --T smitts 01:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Submillimeter Bulldog123 10:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto & Dr. Sub. Carlossuarez46 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Conservation areas of South Africa[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Conservation areas of South Africa to Category:Protected areas of South Africa

Propose renaming Category:Conservation areas of Lesotho to Category:Protected areas of Lesotho

Nominator's Rationale: Rename per convention (see Category:Protected areas by country). Abberley2 10:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

University presidents[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename everything to "presidents of":

Category:University of Illinois presidents to Category:Presidents of the University of Illinois

Category:University of Michigan presidents to Category:Presidents of the University of Michigan

Category:LSU chancellors to Category:Chancellors of Louisiana State University

Category:Northwestern University Presidents to Category:Presidents of Northwestern University

Category:Suffolk University Presidents to Category:Presidents of Suffolk University

Conscious 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These would all change to match the conventions of category:American university and college presidents, which strongly favors "(X) presidents". There are, however, the subcategories of category: Canadian university and college chief executives to consider, as they are all "Presidents of (X)".--Mike Selinker 08:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question is there any particular reason (other than historical accident) why we have two different naming conventions for university president categories in North America? Shouldn't we standardise on one system for both? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think we should standardize. But I felt uncomfortable nominating the Canadian categories when they followed a clear standard. Since the US categories match what we do in Category:People by university or college in the United States and its subcategories, I figured we'd better line those up, and then see what others say about the Canadian categories.--Mike Selinker 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I was just wondering whether we shouldn't first see which (if either) style might be chosen as a common convention for the US & Canada, so that we don't run the risk of renaming this group twice. But I guess I was getting ahead of myself, and that we should stick to this convention unless and until it's changed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The first two are not usage, and I suspect few of the rest are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems desirable to standardize on something one way or the other here, but as Pmanderson says, some of the usages of the form "(institution) presidents" seem very unfamiliar. And there are other, broader precedents like Category:Presidents by country to consider, where the standard form is "Presidents of (country)". And in the Google spot-checking I've done, the "president of X" form seems often to be far more frequently used than the "X president" form. I think the proposed rename should be reversed, and the category standardized to "presidents of X". -- Rbellin|Talk 16:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with that too.--Mike Selinker 17:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Isms[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No important commonality among these articles except that they end in "-ism". Trovatore 08:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment No, the category is not limited to words ending in -ism. The purpose is to identify belief sets. Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- please note that categories are much more efficient than lists, and that we already have List of isms and List of philosophical isms. It might take a while to categorize all of the isms, but it'll be worth it in the end. Having all of the "Isms" in one place would/could be useful to many. --Wassermann 08:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- this category was just recently created and you already want to delete it without giving it a chance to grow? This category groups words/concepts that end with the important Greek -ism suffix. These words/concepts are important and influential in regards to ancient and modern history, the history of ideas, the history of science & the social sciences, general theories/concepts, English etymology, neologisms, and so forth. See also: -ism -- if this suffix is important enough have an article, surely it can have a category as well? All of the different "Isms" are often talked about together as a very broad unit, group, or general pool of theories/knowledge; thus it makes sense to have a broad umbrella category such as this one that yokes them all together. --Wassermann 08:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I can see that many isms are important to the history of ideas, but I struggle to find much connection between, for example the first two entries under the letter M: magnetism and malapropism (I could list any more such pairs, e.g. albigensianism and atlanticism). Additionally, because the category is based on a word ending rather than on similarity of concept, the category cannot include other concepts such as convection or radiation, so this doesn't even up as an all-inclusive category of ideas.
I think that this makes an interesting list, but we don't create categories out of every list or vice-versa. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The category is not intended to include magnetism, or malapropism. It is a category of belief sets. Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- What about the list issue that I mentioned, about categories being more efficient and clean than those lists? Since you vote to delete I suppose that your prepared to delete the List of isms too then? Along with the List of philosophical isms? What about the article -ism while your at it? This category is meant to be a categorical GLOSSARY of "-isms" (see Category:Glossaries), not a category of inter-related concepts/idea/theories (even though many series of "isms" are of course inter-related [such Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Bolshevism, Collectivism, etc]). Maybe this does belong more in Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia...but it hasn't even had a chance to grow here yet! --Wassermann 12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to delete the lists. Please do read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Really, it'll clear up this misunderstanding for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I fully agree with BrownHairedGirl. This is a category based on a similarity in form (Phonetics) not in meaning (Semantics). C mon 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct...it is a phonetic glossary. Are phonetic glossaries not allowed here? --Wassermann 12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Correction -- please let me clarify: the category is for sets of beliefs not phonetics. Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - "ism" can be added to anything (deletionism, wikipediaism, derisionism, ismism, etc.) a suffix does not a category make. the important ideas it may designate can and should be expressed through tighter categories.--Red Deathy 10:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment excuse me, but yes -ism can be added to "anything" in the same way "anything" can be an entry in the wikipedia. This is not a trivial observation. The category is not about adding -ism to words. It's about identifying sets of beliefs. Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a broad category, not a tight one. Again, I would think of it more like a full-blown glossary of Isms rather than a category. Like I asked BHG above, do you also support deleting the two -ism lists I talked about above? --Wassermann 12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category clutter that implies a close connection that just isn't there. AshbyJnr 10:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The close connection is the "-ism" suffix...this would be more of a glossary rather than a category, or a glossary posing as a category. --Wassermann 12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The close connection is in being the name of a set of beliefs. Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. The subjects have little in common aside from their names and should not be categorized together. Dr. Submillimeter 11:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a glossary of Isms -- please see Category:Glossaries. --Wassermann 12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction if the only connection you see is the three letters ism, I'd call that willfully ignoring the facts at this point.Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wasserman, you seem to misunderstand what Category:Glossaries is for. It is a category of articles or lists which are in them selves glossaries, and not an invitation to use the category system to construct a glossary. Also, please please read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, but your point is moot because Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes is a mere guideline, not a set-in-stone policy. I quote: "...it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception..." --Wassermann 14:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, I know, let's invoke some deletionism here. Per WP:OC, in case you were wondering :) >Radiant< 13:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment deletionism would be an appropriate member of the category because it involves actions consistent with a set of beliefs
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is a category of words, not articles on related topics. As has already been stated, there's no relevant connection between Marxism, magnetism, and malapropism. -- Rbellin|Talk 14:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you are missing the point magnetism, and malapropism do not qualify for this category. Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- the "relevant connection" = Category:History of ideas. --Wassermann 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- do you all not see the potential usefulness of having all (or most) of the "Isms" in a centralized location under a single category heading? --Wassermann 14:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, well they are all together in the list, but having the category at the bottom of each page seems to be of the marginal (if any) usefulness ... and it's greatly outweighed by the category clutter it causes. How likely is it that someone reading the article on marxism would want to be able to navigate easily to the article on magnetism? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment -- your silly example does not support the conclusion that this is a useless category. People do, however, want to navigate easily between belief systems, thank you very much.Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment -- the huge amount of -isms obviously aren't "all together in the list" yet...what is there already is only a very small fraction of the total amount! --Wassermann 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - (In response to Wassermann.) No, I see no usefulness to this category, although I find the comparisons (voyeurism, Trotskyism, Bushism, Buddhism, anti-Americanism) to be very funny. (Hey, look, the category contains absurdism!) Could you explain how this is supposed to be useful? What was I supposed to learn from this list of terms anyway? Dr. Submillimeter 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find it very arrogant that because each of you fail to see the usefulness, those of us who do must suffer. People with an interest in philosophy will find this category very useful. Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment -- like I said before, the categorical potential has barely been scratched -- I'd venture to say that less that 5% of the the -isms are in this category yet. --Wassermann 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That you're a voyeuristic, Trotskyite, Bushite, Buddhist, anti-American absurdist, of course. Silly boy! ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now you are just name-calling. Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A category of words connected by nothing but a suffix is a waste of time and of no use at all. Tarc 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well then its a good thing you are mistaken about what the category is. It will include words not ending in -ism as well. Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Category:History of ideas? Category:Glossaries? Category:Suffixes? Category:Greek suffixes? Category:Knowledge? Category:Theories? Category:Vocabulary? Category:Word coinage? Category:Neologisms? --Wassermann 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- OK, I give up, having now been overwhelmed by the hive mind mass. But you all must admit: this glossary/category would indeed fit quite snugly in Category:History of ideas...not to mention Category:Glossaries, Category:Suffixes, Category:Greek suffixes, Category:Knowledge, Category:Theories, Category:Vocabulary, Category:Word coinage, and others. One more thing...I'd like you all to take a quick moment to read "Groupthinkism." ;) --Wassermann 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firm delete. Far too broad a category, unless we decide on "Words suffived "-ing" and the like; naming is just too colloquial. Daniel Case 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction the category is not about the three letters, it's about names of beliefs systems. Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- I'm finding a lot of the opposition pretty obtuse. There is obviously more going on here than a phonetic ending. The collection is probably more useful as a category than as a list. The category can be further clarified as 'belief sets' or 'beliefs' or 'belief systems,' etc. I see no reason why we could not include words that signify a belief system, but take a form other than -ism. I created this category because it is a legitimate aid to searching. It is just a lot more work than I thought, so I have been taking it gradually. Please don't delete it. Thanks. Be well. Gregbard 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If we keep this jism should definitely be in the category, then. Daniel Case 01:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment sir, excuse me, but this word is specifically excluded from the list version, why would you presume that it will go in the category? Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The category currently includes absenteeism and neologism, neither of which is a belief system. It also includes artistic styles such as cubism and imagism. If you want a category of belief systems or something like that, this is a bad way to start. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response I never intended for something like neologism to be a member. However all of the others you mention involve actions that are consistent with beliefs. I think the fact that you didn't see that is consistent with a narrow view.Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you can see the flaw in the following list - Buddism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam - although they constitute a subject set, they are not linked by -ism. To include Islamism would be erroneous, not to mention offensive.--Red Deathy 06:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Christianity is welcome in this category, along with Islam. However, I don't see how the inclusion of "Islamism" in this category is offensive. Please tell me that you see the difference between holding a belief and identifying something as a belief system with a name?! Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment my point was neither Christianity nor Islam are "-isms" - Islamism is a political ideology distinct from the faith of Islam (and the confusion between the two can be offensive, Al-Qaeda is an Islamist organisation, not Islamic. All of which just serves to illustrate that tehre is no meaningful set which a category "isms" identifies. If you start including ideas that don't end in "ism" then I suggest you rename the category to something more meaningful.--Red Deathy 07:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a useless way of achieving the objectives set out above. Postlebury 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment simple analysis very often misses the point. Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Category is going to be too large to be useful and combine ideas that are only related by phonetic ending. We'd logically have to break the category up into similar subcats, such as art movements, political movements, etc. And... maybe not so surprising, these categories already exist. A list seems sufficient, and the criteria for inclusion is so broad and trivial to not be useful in a categorization scheme. -Andrew c 21:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The category is not about the phonetics, it is about beliefs. why exactly is your conclusion that the category should go? Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to vague as to what goes here.--Sefringle 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if we have this, we may also have a Category:Pan- for every entry beginning with Pan- because thats a suffix, e.g. Pan-African Federation, Pan-American Conference, Pan-Celticism, Pan-bagnat, Panagram, Pananandata, Panorama, Panarchism, Panbabylonism, Pancritical rationalism, Pandeism, Pandu Block, Pandroseion,Panentheism, Panpsychism, Panrationalism, Pansophism, Panthalassa, Pantheon, Pantheism, Pantheistic solipsism, Pantone, Pantropy (notice how many are "isms" there too....) //// Pacific PanDeist * 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You omitted pancakes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that's sad too on account of I love pancakes.... but in most of what I listed pan is intended to mean "all".... //// Pacific PanDeist * 05:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Pan" category you posit is not useful, however the Ism category is not the same thing. Perhaps someone will introduce a "supraorganization" category: Organizations that have organizations, rather than individuals as members (i.e. U.N., California State University, NATO, etc.) That would be a good category because it is an idea and not a prefix associated with it. The ism category aims at the same thing.Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's next a category for pages with exactly 3 vowels in the title? jbolden1517^Talk 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yep that sure would be silly. and it proves you've missed the point. Gregbard 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category clutter; no significant relationship between the items in the category. What next, Category:Country names that end with "a"? Hmm: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Canada, Croatia, Cuba, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Syria, Tunisia, Venezuela, Zambia... maybe I should create it! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you have missed the point like the others. The category does not hinge on the letters ism, it hinges on being a belief system. The category may include words not ending in -ism. Your silly example is irrelevant. Gregbard 22:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then it ought to be named Category:Belief systems. Dragons flight 00:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(comment, my vote is above) This category has been deleted before: log at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 21#Category:Isms. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Unjustly groups topics simply on the basis of a particular English-language construction. - Merzbow 02:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all in to Category:Belief systems. --Wassermann 04:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment hate to say this, but ableism, racism and sexism aren't necessarilly belief systems, neither is absurdism. Arguably neither is socialism nor communism, etc. they are ideologies (and their proponents (hello!) would maintain they are based on observable facts and deductive logic not belief.--Red Deathy 07:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - commment Well, there are certainly articles currently categorized under "isms" that don't belong (for example asceticism and pauperism are, respectively, a practice and a state of being). Ideologies are belief systems; I think that will be largely non-controversial, arguing otherwise is just foolish. (For that matter, even science is a belief system.) But in any case this is a huge improvement over "isms", in part because it can leave out the articles that make you want to say "one of these things is not like the other". --Trovatore 07:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have nominated for deletion the newly-created Category:Belief systems, which appears to be simply a duplicate of this category. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 11#Category:Belief systems.
Since this CfD has not closed, the new category does not precisely amount to the of recreation of deleted material, but the category text shows that it is an explicit attempt to pre-empt the likely outcome of this CfD: This category had originally been named "-isms," but it was thought that categories defined by their suffixes was not appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this attempt to associate subjects in a way that is not normally done. IZAK 09:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & BHG & per precendent: We deleted Category:Cities named Antiochia, which although what linked them was synonymy, they had a lot more in common with one another (all being founded or expanded by a single dynasty over a 200-year or so period) than "-ism"s. Carlossuarez46 16:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm wondering whether some of the criticisms are being made by speakers of English as a second language. "Isms" are not just words that end in "ism". That's an incredibly obtuse argument for deleting this category. And "belief systems" doesn't capture it either. Single beliefs can be "isms", so long as they are doctrinal. Grace Note 04:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Do you have any referencces which define the concept of a "doctrinal ism"??? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

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

Category:Clubs formed by a merger[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. Not generally good practice for a renaming discussion to be closed as a delete but in this particular instance it's justified. Sam Blacketer 09:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Clubs formed by a merger to Category:Football (soccer) clubs formed by a merger

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Category name too obtuse. Needs to have the qualification by sport. Dale Arnett 06:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the early stages of many fields of activity, many organisations are created which subsequently collapse or merge with others, and in some sectors (e.g. business), ongoing merger activity is the norm rather than an exception. In this case, the first article I looked at was Blackburn Olympic F.C., formed by a merger in 1877, the very early days of the sport; that small detail of the club's foundation 130 years ago does not appear to be a defining difference from, e.g. Millwall F.C.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would apply to many, many English clubs, and most likely to many more in the rest of the world, but it isn't a meaningful connection. AshbyJnr 10:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. Johnbod 07:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to deletion. — Dale Arnett 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (nominator)[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:Boroughs of New York City[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. Sam Blacketer 09:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not many potential articles here - even counting talk pages, only 10. Od Mishehu 05:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ ~~Merge per A Musing below.~~ Keep, and delete "in New York," per Haddiscoe below. Number is irrelevant. This is all the members of an important category.--Mike Selinker 08:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. --Wassermann 08:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a very important aspect of the city. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The size of a category is irrelevant if it serves a legitimate purpose. AshbyJnr 10:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to also be a Category:Boroughs in New York - shall we merge? A Musing 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. I'd merge "Boroughs in New York" into "Boroughs of New York City," but either way is fine.--Mike Selinker 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the originally nominated category, and delete category:Boroughs in New York. There is nothing to merge, "of" is correct for subdivisions, and "City" is necessary because "New York" on its own refers to the state in the category system. Haddiscoe 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Boroughs of New York City, and delete Category:Boroughs in New York, per Haddiscoe. The "city" suffix is needed to help avoid confusion and for consistency with other subcats of Category:New York City. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one, Delete the other, per Haddiscoe & BHG Johnbod 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one, Delete the other, per Haddiscoe & BHG; but note this is an exception to our usual practice which is to delete cats for small groups which generally have inter-links among the articles (or as here does so by way of a template), because of the "extreme" notability of the subject material and the "extreme" notability of the category to which they belong, such an exception is IMHO warranted. Carlossuarez46 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Drive (TV series)[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. Sam Blacketer 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category for a cancelled show. Little to no chance of any possible expansion. There are not one but two navtemplates for the series along with the easy linkage of the articles through the main article. The category is unnecessary for navigational purposes. Otto4711 05:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary eponymous category for the tv show (most TV shows don't need an eponymous category). Dugwiki 16:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, why are you people obliterating ALL of the TV-show categories? Now you are making the network categories these cats. reside in and others vastly underpopulated because of these mass-deletions...PLEASE, THINK! --Wassermann 06:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Mr. Show[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. Sam Blacketer 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minus the improperly categorized articles on cast and crew, there are two articles in the category which are easily interlinked. The subcats are in the appropriate episodes and characters category trees. This category is not needed. Otto4711 04:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, why are you people obliterating ALL of the TV-show categories? Now you are making the network categories these cats. reside in and others vastly underpopulated because of these mass-deletions...PLEASE, THINK! --Wassermann 06:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and as previously Otto has a solid argument against the case. Wasserman's comment seems to be off point: the shows would still be categorised as whatever they are, just not in a subcategory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lucky Louie[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Sam Blacketer 19:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lucky Louie to Category:Lucky Louie images

Nominator's Rationale: Rename and repurpose - all of the articles in the category are for cast and crew, which is improper categorization. The category should be renamed and repurposed to specify that it is for images and the articles should be removed. Otto4711 04:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jimmy Kimmel Live[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was keep. Conscious 09:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category is being used to capture cast, crew and guests, which is completely improper per innumerable precedents. Otto4711 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - you falsely state it's being used to capture "guests", when it only features cast and crew, past and present.Stephen's black friend 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that some of the people in the category have been guests on the show as well. If not then I withdraw that portion of my statement. The fact still remains that we do not categorize people by the projects on which they work by strong consensus and precedent so a category that absent such improperly categorized articles would be virtually empty is not needed. Otto4711 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, why are you people obliterating ALL of the TV-show categories? Now you are making the network categories these cats. reside in and others vastly underpopulated because of these mass-deletions...PLEASE, THINK! --Wassermann 06:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Primates of the Assyrian Church of the East[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was keep. Conscious 09:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primates of the Assyrian Church of the East to Category:Bishops of the Assyrian Church of the East

Merge, Another underpopulated primates category which would be better handled by a list. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the reasons cited in my vote on the next nominations. Pastorwayne 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exactly like the Category:Archbishops of Canterbury discussed above. As there, it could be renamed, although the see seems to have moved several times. Looking at the list in the category shows that several articles exist which belong in this cat, although they don't have it yet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category contains only three articles, and one of those is the List of Patriarchs of Babylon, which could be directly categorised in Category:Primates of Syriac Christianity (the parent cat of Category:Primates of the Assyrian Church of the East). If there were more articles on these patriarchs, there might be a case for a specific category, but a subcat for one lone biographical article is unnecessary overcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East in line with the discussion below (as the name Patriarch is used and not primate) and populate per Septentrionalis above. -- roundhouse 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eastern Rite Catholic primates[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/merge/keep as proposed by Submillimeter below. This sensibly thought-out solution has the support of a consensus. Sam Blacketer 19:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primates of the Armenian Catholic Patriarchial Catholicosate of Cilicia

Category:Primates of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Kyiv and Halych

Category:Primates of the Syro Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Catholic Church

Category:Primates of the Syriac Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East of the Syrians

Category:Primates of the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, and Alexandria and Jerusalem

Category:Primates of the Coptic Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria

Category:Chaldean Catholic Patriarchs of Babylon

Category:Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch (see note)

Upmerge all to Category:Eastern Rite Catholic primates as overcategorisation. This is a series of tautological and nearly incomprehensibly-named categories for simply-named positions such as the Patriarch of Cilicia, whose category is Category:Primates of the Armenian Catholic Patriarchial Catholicosate of Cilicia. I was going to suggest renaming, but most contain less only ten entries, and they appear to have no other articles ready for inclusion. This is part of one of User:Pastorwayne's unwieldy and inconsidered category hierarchies, so better deleted. There are already lists which do the job well enough. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Category:Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch was renamed at CfD on May 1.
  See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 3#Category:Primates of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 1#Category:Primates of the Chaldean Catholic Patriarchate_of_Babylon --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complex comment/vote:
Rename:
Category:Primates of the Armenian Catholic Patriarchial Catholicosate of Cilicia as Category:Armenian Catholic Patriarchs of Cilicia

Category:Primates of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Kyiv and Halych as Category:Greek Catholic Patriarchs of Kyiv and Halych

Category:Primates of the Syriac Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East of the Syrians as Category:Syriac Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch

Category:Primates of the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, and Alexandria and Jerusalem as Category:Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch

Category:Primates of the Coptic Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria as Category:Coptic Catholic Patriarchs of Alexandria

Merge:
Category:Primates of the Syro Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Catholic Church into Category:Syro-Malabar Catholic Archbishops of Ernakulam-Angamaly

Keep:
Category:Chaldean Catholic Patriarchs of Babylon

Category:Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch

Mixing the patriarchs for these various denominations together does not seem appropriate. Moreover, some of these categories already contain six or more articles, and many of these categories have the strong potential for growth (see, for example, List of Chaldean Catholic Patriarchs of Babylon). Hence, I oppose merging all of these categories into Category:Eastern Rite Catholic primates. However, I also dislike the overly-complicated names that have been devised for these categories, especially since "Primate of the Patriarchate" is used much less frequently than "Patriarch" or "Archbishop" to refer to these individuals. Therefore, I suggest renaming where appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but (to take your example) only two articles actually exist for the Patriarchs of Babylon, and the whole of Category:Chaldean Catholics contains only 8 articles. Likewise, there are only 4 articles on the maronite patriarchs. If and when the articles are created, there may be a case for creating sub-categories which can be populated, but in the meantime wouldn't it just be better to categorise all the 27 articles on these patriarchs together, rather than dividing them between 8 sparsely-populated sub-categories?
  BTW, if we are going to rename, it dosn't appear that we need to include the denomination in most cases; e.g. the only patriarchs of Babylon appear to be the Chaldean Catholic one, so we could just call the categoy Category:Patriarchs of Babylon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Sparcely-populated categories are probably more appropriate. The various churches described here just do not seem closely related enough to warrant grouping the articles together. This is not the same as upmerging articles on Methodist bishops from various religious subdivisions of the United States; this is more like combining Episcopal and Methodist bishops. For example, in this hierarchy, a user looking at Melkite Greek patriarchs is not going to be interested in looking at Coptic Catholic patriarchs or Syro-Malabar Catholic Archbishops and will get irritated trying to sift through the articles. The various patriarchs should be kept in separate categories, even if the categories are sparsely populated. (Also note that small categories are permitted if part of a hierarchy of categories, as would be the case here.) As for the category names (if kept), that is still open to discussion, although the denomination is often used to identify the individuals both in Wikipedia and in external webpages. Dr. Submillimeter 11:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all into Category:Eastern Rite Catholic primates, listifying any that are not already lists. (See below.) I have some concern that Category:Eastern Rite Catholic primates might itself be flawed as its creator has a poor track record. (The List of Maronite Patriarchs is very useful - I can't see that a corresponding category would add anything.) -- roundhouse 11:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The names of these cats are derived from the names/words used by these Christian churches themselves. For example, they call their church NOT just the "Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church," but in fact the "Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Kyiv and Halych." There are many similar examples. Using the words/names each Christian body prefers shows utmost respect for that group, and most accurately describes what in fact is being categorized. Obviously, many of these cats are under-populated. But only because the articles have yet to be written. As you can see, in many cases the article titles have been "red worded," indicating the intention of someone to write these articles. Once they are written, they can then be added to appropriate cats, including these. Moreover, these and other cats can be added to other cats as appropriate. That they have not yet been is not a valid reason to delete the cats. Pastorwayne 19:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I would be very surprised if the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch refer to themselves as "Primates of the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, and Alexandria and Jerusalem". You are a pastor, and a Christian minister; these categories are like calling you a "Minster of the Methodist Pastorate of the LeRoy United Methodist Church" rather than simply a "Pastor of the LeRoy United Methodist Church". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply In fact, I doubt they would "mind" being called this, since this is EXACTLY what they are! They are the Primates of their Patriarchate. Their Patriarchate is as they call it ("Of Antioch and All the East"). Your comparison to me makes no sense, since those words are not used. But the words as they are here ARE used, by that Patriarchate as well as by others. Pastorwayne 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The term "primate" is a term unique to Western Christianity and isn't used in the Eastern Churches. Even if it were used, it would probably not be used to describe a patriarch any more than a Pope would refer to himself as the Primate of Italy. Majoreditor 13:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - PW, you say that this is the term used, but a google search for the phrase "Primates of the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, and Alexandria and Jerusalem" shows its only usage to be the categories created by you, and a search for "Primate of the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, and Alexandria and Jerusalem" returns zero hits. Please stop making these demonstrably false assertions; it's not helpful to mislead CfD discussions in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would mind a rename, to at least use the less formal, common English names. No need for bloated honorific formal names when plain English, more common names exist. I'm confused about something though: Patriarchs of the east lists 6 different Churches and Eastern Catholic Churches only lists 5 regions but 22 Churches. I know there are 22 Eastern particular Churches within the Catholic Church. So is this category expandable to 22 different subcats? Or are these 8 churches the only churches that have "primates"? Perhaps, in the future there may be a need for these subcats, but right now I am leaning towards this being a case of poor naming and possible overcategorization. However, could someone please clear up why there are more than 6 but less than 22 subcats?-Andrew c 20:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply In some of these cases (in Roman Catholicism) the term "Primate" is not used. In others, the subcat has not yet been created because the articles about the persons to be so categorized have yet to be written. Pastorwayne 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Submillimeter, unless he can be shown to have slipped. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename each of them to Patriarchs of the xxxxxx Catholic Church. Also -- please do NOT use the term Eastern Rite. See the vote on the talk page for Eastern Catholic Churches from earlier this year. The decision is to refer to them as Churches, not as Rites. Majoreditor 13:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Dr. Submillimeter's suggestion. Majoreditor 16:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Dr. Submillimeter - persuaded by above arguments. Also rename Category:Eastern Rite Catholic primates to reflect concerns of Majoreditor (if he could supply a preferred alternative). -- roundhouse 18:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See separate nomination for Category:Eastern Rite Catholic primates at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 14#Category:Eastern Rite Catholicism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Dr. Submillimeter. Arguments to keep the categories separate are persuasive, and the current names are horrible when far simpler and more common ones exist. 130.245.211.199 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per paestorwayne. I think many people here have failed to understand why these are quite different things.Poo sandwich 21:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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