Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 27

< October 26	October 28 >

October 27[edit]

Category:Garment industry[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Garment industry to Category:Clothing and textile companies

Nominator's rationale: Merge, this whole section of the category tree is completely needs work. There's no clear distinction between the garment industry, the textile industry, the clothing industry and it's creating a lot of confusion. So I propose at least upmerging the garment industry to its parent. Pascal.Tesson 23:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have been looking at Category:Industries so I am not surprised by this nomination. What is the real purpose for Category:Industries when it tends to overlap with the companies categories. In particular, Category:Companies by industry. Vegaswikian 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is. These two categories are in no way the same, as reading of the contents of the categories shows. Category:Garment industry articles discuss various technical and other aspects of the industry, but not business companies; Category:Clothing and textile companies articles discuss business companies. Hmains 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the tree may indeed need work, but this proposal is mistaken. The proposed destination is (or should be) a list of companies. This one contains trades and processes. This is a real distinction. I would also oppose merging it with the textile industry, which is (or should be) concerned with producing cloth, where as this category should relate to produing garments from cloth. Perhaps "clothing industry" needs to be split between other categories. If the suggestion arises from the appearance of the Drapers Company, the nominator has failed to appreciate that this is (or was originally) a trade guild, not a company in the modern sense. Peterkingiron 00:08, 1 November 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:Books critical of Hadith[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, empty. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Rtphokie 22:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 28 October 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:Books in discourse analysis[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. Kbdank71 14:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: over categorization. Rtphokie 22:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Books about discourse analysis I am sympathetic to small and apparently weedy Books categories because they form a bridge between the Books tree and the tree of whatever the subject is, and because the members are otherwise likely to be lost in the huge main categories on the books side. These are the sort of books people write articles about, so no doubt growth is possible. Johnbod 23:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 31 October 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:Non-fiction books about horse racing[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. Kbdank71 14:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: over-categorization. Rtphokie 22:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why is this any different than the other subcats of Category:Sports books? Or are you suggesting that they all be deleted? Otto4711 00:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto's question. Books articles, since we have them, need a degree of categorisation higher than many things if they are not to be unfindable. There are plenty more equally notable bokks which could be added to expand the category. Johnbod 13:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - other categories have more than 3 articles. While I agree that books can benefit from a bit more categorization than other topics, they still need to be used.--Rtphokie 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Books about horse racing. Most of the subcats of the Sports books category don't differentiate between fiction and non-fiction in the category title and there's no need I can see for this one to. That the category is small is less relevant when the category is part of a larger categorization scheme and the subcats of the Sports books category are enough to qualify IMHO. I'm suggesting the "books about" format to avoid potential confusion that the category is for sportsbooks that specialize in horse racing. Otto4711 15:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although they don't say so in the name, the other categories are all part of the nonfiction tree. Given the best-known books about horseracing are almost certainly the 38 odd novels by Dick Francis (popular in the US as well as UK apparently) I think the distinction is probably worth keeping here. "sportsbook" is an unknown term in the UK, btw. Johnbod 23:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to only be one article for a Dick Francis novel to judge by the list in his article and that one is a stub. Should there be a sudden glut of articles on horseracing novels we can discuss whether they and other fiction books about sports should be in separate trees or if there needs to be a "fiction" or "non-fiction" qualifier in the category name. As it stands now it's unnecessary. Otto4711 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are in separate trees & no one is suggesting a change to that. But given there are other novels about horse-racing (not so categorised) like National Velvet and many others it is as well to keep it clear this is a non-fiction only category. The potential for confusion there seems greater than with sportsbooks (and I'm not clear why they should not be in this category anyway) Johnbod 02:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Keep as is - I created this specific non-fiction Category. This does not belong here but it is my mistake as I forgot to put the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing on the TALK page. This will in fact become a sizeable category, however, it takes time as presently Project members are properly giving precedence to the huge job of creating horse race details and bios for horses, jockeys, trainer, owners. - Handicapper 15:11, 1 November 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:Call of Duty levels[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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization, no potential for growth. Merge with Category:Call of Duty series if necessary; otherwise listify. GregorB 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should not be merged really - makes no sense. Just delete then. GregorB 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All-out nuclear delete, do not merge, do not listify. This category is classifying real historical events such as Brécourt Manor Assault and Pavlov's House according to their representation in a computer game. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 31 October 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:Sunday School of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[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. Kbdank71 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sunday School of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Sunday School (LDS Church)

Propose remaing' Category:General presidents of the Sunday School of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:General presidents of the Sunday School (LDS Church)

Nominator's rationale: To conform to the title of the main article, Sunday School (LDS Church). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom. Proposed titles are shorter, just as informative, and conform better with the name of the relevant article. Snocrates 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (changed opionion). WP:NCCAT#General_naming_conventions says abbreviations should be avoided in category names. All other categories related to the LDS Church use the church's full name, and these should be no different. One of these categories was just discussed/renamed in a 30 SEP CFD. Snocrates 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Snocrates's revised opinion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 31 October 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:Primary[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 Category:Primary to Category:Primary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, keep the second as is. Kbdank71 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Primary to Category:Primary (LDS Church)

Propose renaming Category:General presidents of the Primary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:General presidents of the Primary (LDS Church)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Primary could be thought to refer to many things (see the disambiguation page for the term primary). Thus, for clarity and consistency, it should be renamed to match the title of the main article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom. First one should conform to article name. Second one should be made to conform to first. Snocrates 22:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose second nomination; Rename first to Category:Primary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. WP:NCCAT#General_naming_conventions says abbreviations should be avoided in category names. All other categories related to the LDS Church use the church's full name, and these should be no different. The second of these categories was just discussed/renamed in a 30 SEP CFD. Snocrates 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Snocrates's revised opinion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 31 October 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:British television - retro list programming[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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the phrase "retro list programming" does not appear to exist outside Wikipedia to identify this as a programming genre. The "100 Greatest" subcat, which includes three of the four articles already (the 4th is appropriately categorized elsewhere), suffices as a container. Otto4711 18:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Retro" is a very subjective term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 1 November 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:I Love the ... 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 merge. Kbdank71 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:I Love the ... series to Category:VH1 television series

Nominator's rationale: Merge - this category formerly had several dozen stub articles, one for each year of each mini-series. I have merged all of the stubs into their appropriate mini-series article. All of the series-level articles are linked through text and template and the category is not warranted. Otto4711 18:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 31 October 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:African Americans by sport[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 merge, per WP:OCAT "However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category.", per precedent with Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_29#Category:German-American_sportspeople, and yes, per precedent with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_3#Category:African_American_baseball_players . Kbdank71 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:African American professional wrestlers to Category:African American sportspeople

Suggest merging Category:African American tennis players‎ to Category:African American sportspeople

Suggest merging Category:African American soccer players to Category:African American sportspeople

Suggest merging Category:African American football players to Category:African American sportspeople

Suggest merging Category:African American boxers‎ to Category:African American sportspeople

Suggest merging Category:African American basketball players to Category:African American sportspeople

Suggest merging Category:African American track and field athletes‎ to Category:African American sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: Merge to listed target and to the corresponding subcat of Category:American sportspeople. overcategorization by race. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_3#Category:African_American_baseball_players. Otto4711 18:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The baseball category merger nom was withdrawn and then inexplicably closed prematurely for merge which doesn't make a lot of sense - at the least it was at a "no consensus" point. So I wouldn't like to see that one used here as justification. Tvoz |talk 15:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into both suggested targets and "American (X) players". I have no objection to a category based on race, but here, these categories seem to supersede the equivalent "American (X) players." So putting all these individuals into one category based on race and another based on sport played seems an excellent solution. However, I would amend the nomination to also place these articles into "American (X) players" so that no article falls out of that tree.--Mike Selinker 02:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nom already suggests this merger, "and to the corresponding subcat of Category:American sportspeople." Otto4711 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now. Thanks.--Mike Selinker 12:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete African American sportspeople don't play their sports any differently than any one else. WP:OCAT as trivial intersection of (a) race; (b) nationality; and (c) occupation - no different than Category:German-American sportspeople and others deleted a while ago. Carlossuarez46 03:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Listify. Minority participation in American sports is a notable topic, African Americans specifically so because of the long history of their integration (or lack thereof) into aspects of general American society. --Eliyak T·C 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer Keep but I can support Merge into African American professional athletes. Race is notable in the United States since up until about 30 years ago most professional sports were either legally or ideologically segregated. Additionally, since African Americans make up 12% of the country the numbers, when compared to the rest of America and the World, will always be small, so helping readers locate these individuals is logical. CJ 11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic Groups-related deletions. CJ 11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I don't have time for a full-blown comment right now, but I want to go on record in support of keeping these sub-cats. Merging them all into one huge parent category would be senselessly destructive for readers expecting to find useful navigation to articles through the category structure. I will have more to say later. Cgingold 13:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — It's overcategorization to a degree, but as Eliyak and Crownjewel noted, African American sports participation is a notable topic, considering that segregation was the de facto state of American sports until the post-WWII era. The one sport where I think the nominator has the strongest case is basketball, where white Americans are now uncommon enough, especially in the NBA, that a category of "White American basketball players" could arguably be significant, and probably smaller than its African American counterpart. — Dale Arnett 14:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst Listify but do not "merge" or "delete." To merge these would make a mess. As a category it's historically notable, I'd like to see articles on the subjects as well. futurebird 13:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned on WP:AFRO's talk page. futurebird 14:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What's the use of a single large category? Overcategorization typically creates very small categories, while the ones proposed above could, fully populated, easily have hundreds of articles. GregorB 14:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - these categories are exactly what readers need to help them navigate through the encyclopedia - if someone is writing a paper, say, about African-Americans in boxing, this subcategory provides an easy way to navigate to those articles. To assume that all thats needed is the overarching "African-American sportspeople" misses the point and the value of such subcategories - the usual argument here is "can an article reasonably be written about African-Americans in boxing", and I think the answer is overwhelmingly yes. The sub-cat facilitates navigation and that's what it's supposed to do; the broader cat makes navigation much more difficult and seems to suggest that the only interest a person would have is to see all sports that African-Americans compete in professionally, and that's quite wrong. Tvoz |talk 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as categories. Don't listify. These subcategories are large and distinct enough to exist on their own. The giant supercategory isn't very useful without being able to zoom in. The comparison with the deleted category "German American sportspeople" completely misses these categories' historical and socio-political context, which varies greatly between baketball, boxing, and tennis, for example. Category:African_American_baseball_players should be recreated. I admit to applying "I like it" to a point, as categories help me find articles for querents at the reference desk, and also allow me to supervise "related changes" on specific topics I'm familiar with. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you, thank you, thank you, Sluzzelin. I have been making this point every way I can think of, whenever categories like this are up for deletion. But it never occurred to me how important they can be for Wiki volunteers such as yourself who are trying to help people at the Reference Desk. I believe that nominations like this reflect an extreme preoccupation with one aspect of categorization that results in overvaluing of certain elements and complete devaluing of other elements. Simply put, it's a form of tunnel vision that loses sight of the fundamental purpose of categories -- and of the unfortunate end results for the readers who we're supposedly doing all of this work for.

To call these sub-cats "overcategorization" is nothing less than an absurd misuse of that term. Everybody who actually uses the category structure to find things knows how important sub-cats like these can be -- an essential fact which often seems to go missing in action when categorization becomes an arid intellectual exericise. There are untold thousands of real cases of overcategorization -- but these sub-cats are not among them. The real issue we're dealing with here is the under-categorization that would result if these sub-cats were to be merged.

Which reminds me: when Category:African American baseball players was deleted (and I of course agree, it should be recreated), more than 340 articles were dumped en masse into Category:African American sportspeople, causing it to swell to its current size in excess of 500 articles. If all of these sub-cats were deleted, that would result in an additional ~1900 articles being dumped into that category. If there's anything even more non-sensical than teeny-tiny categories, its gargantuan categories that serve no practical purpose due to their sheer size. Let's just allow common sense to prevail. Cgingold 13:06, 2 November 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:Suspected persistent organic pollutants[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. Kbdank71 13:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for "organic chemicals that are not currently officially recognized as persistent organic pollutants, but that many people argue meet the criteria and could be recognized as POPs in the future". Who are these 'many people'? It isn't enough to limit the set of considered suspicions to those expressed by reliable sources, since this only raises other questions. How many must there be? How strong must the suspicions be? Will any random rumour suffice or must there exist at least a certain amount of circumstantial evidence? If the latter, then how much? What if two or more reliable sources contradict? Such complexity cannot be captured by a simple category, at least not without treading into the realm of original or arbitrary definitions and interpretations. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. This sort of info belongs in a list, where the reasons for inclusion can be explained and referenced, but there is no point in creating a list for the sole occupant of this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more suspects probably ill-advised by way of categories. Carlossuarez46 03:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per BrownHairedGirl. GregorB 18:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable and arbitrarylist. --Rifleman 82 17:26, 31 October 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:Suspected assassinations[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. Kbdank71 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Suspected by whom? It isn't enough to limit the set of considered suspicions to those expressed by reliable sources, since this only raises other questions. How strong must the suspicions be? Will any random rumour suffice or must there exist at least a certain amount of circumstantial evidence? If the latter, then how much? What if two or more reliable sources contradict? Such complexity, compounded by the fact that the designation of 'assassination' is often controversial and ambiguous, cannot be captured by a simple category, at least not without treading into the realm of original or arbitrary definitions and interpretations. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Silly category, and unecessary for the only member, since this was officially an assassination according to the UK authorities. Johnbod 18:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Johnbod. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Johnbod - one could add others but conspiracy theorists' musings are best not categorized. Carlossuarez46 03:58, 30 October 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:Counties of Prussia[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. Kbdank71 14:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Counties of Prussia to Category:Districts of Prussia

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Taking a European Union translation guide into consideration, WikiProject Germany determined that Kreis should be translated as "district" instead of "county". See also Talk:Districts of Germany. Olessi 17:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, Support. Peterkingiron 00:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If renamed, Category:Counties by country probably ought to be removed or replaced. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:57, 2 November 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:Young Men organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[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. Kbdank71 13:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Young Men organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Young Men (organization) or Category:Young Men (LDS Church)
Category:General presidents of the Young Men organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:General presidents of the Young Men (organization) or Category:General presidents of the Young Men (LDS Church)
Category:Young Women organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Young Women (organization) or Category:Young Women (LDS Church)
Category:General presidents of the Young Women organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:General presidents of the Young Women (organization) or Category:General presidents of the Young Women (LDS Church)

Nominator's rationale: These extremely long category names could be shortened significantly by renaming them to either match the title of the main articles (Young Men (organization) and Young Women (organization)) or by using the parenthetical disambiguator "(LDS Church)". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to one of the proposals. I'm not too concerned about which one is chosen and any of them "work". If -(LDS Church) is used for all, perhaps the article names should be changed to Young Men (LDS Church) and Young Women (LDS Church) for the sake of conformity. Snocrates 08:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, otherwise Oppose. It's less than a month since we had a long series of nominations renaming the LDS categories to a standardised format using the full name of the organisation (see the discussion at CFD Sept 30). A category shouldn't be brought back here this soon, and if we are to revisit this question, we should try to mainaton consuistency by reviewing all the LDS categories together.
However, WP:NCCAT#General_naming_conventions says to "avoid abbreviations", and LDS is an abbreviation (and it's not an abbrev which has become the official name of the church). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the nominator for the 30 Sept nominations that resulted in renaming. I support these changes because I think they are more manageable as category names—essentially, they are shorter—and I find either the current names and these new proposed ones to be equally informative. But if we always use full names in a category name, then we may be stuck with having these long, unweildy categories. I assume that these principles also apply to the nominations for Category:Primary and Category:Sunday School of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on this same date. Snocrates 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (changed opinion) : I have thought more about this and for essentially the same reasons given by BHG, I oppose the changes. In addition, other categories related to the LDS Church consistently use the full name of the church, and these should be no different. They are long and slightly unwieldy, but upon reflection I think it's best to avoid abbreviations in category names and stick with what was decided in the 30 September CFDs. Snocrates 23:01, 29 October 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:List of Articles started by Thebluesharpdude[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 deleted by Richardshusr. Article creators may maintain a personal list in their userspace. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:22, 27 October 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:Musicians of Bangladesh[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 merge into Category:Bangladeshi musicians. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Bangladeshi musicians, convention of Category:Musicians by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and convention of Category:Bangladeshi people by occupation. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 31 October 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:Skyscrapers over 200 meters[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 merge. Kbdank71 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Skyscrapers between 200 and 249 meters, convention of Category:Skyscrapers by height ... only member is planed 210 meters. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 31 October 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:Peanuts characters who believe in the Great Pumpkin[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; merging is not needed as all articles already appear in the proposed target. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Peanuts characters, non-defining, and already listed in The Great Pumpkin article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. "Good grief!" What a strange category. It's not defining, and whether it's true of not depends on what stage of the "Peanuts" chronology we look at. Every character except Linus was a disbeliever originally. Snocrates 22:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining and already listified; merger is unnecessary as all the articles in it are already in the parent category. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bencherlite, Good grief! indeed ... Mallocks 12:22, 31 October 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:People living in Valdivia[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 merge. Kbdank71 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Valdivia, convention of Category:People by city in Chile. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 28 October 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:Nintendo Wi-Fi games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nintendo Wi-Fi games to Category:Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection games

Nominator's rationale: "Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection" is the proper name for these games, and thus should be used instead of this abbrevated one. hbdragon88 08:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to conform with the article Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:55, 2 November 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:Ethernet addresses[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; {{db-catempty}} may be used for categories that have been empty for 4 days or more. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Found it empty, history shows no activity since creation January 2007. tooold 05:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod 22:08, 30 October 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:Operating systems by owner[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 merge. Kbdank71 13:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Operating systems by owner to Category:Operating systems

Nominator's rationale: Merge, This category has only 5 entries, is unlikely to grow, has no value of its own, but serves only to reduce the number of entries in the category "operating systems". A net reduction of 4 entries is not sufficient to justify the increased tree depth/user search complexity for category tree access to these entries. tooold 04:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: there are several schemes for grouping the articles and subcats of Category:Operating systems, and this one seems useful as one of several approaches. I say weak keep, because I'm not sure how much scope it has for expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The scheme is being kept, the same 5 subcategories. Only moved to "operating systems". If the criteria for keeping a subcat were "seems useful" I'd keep it (and the number of Wikipedia subcats would expand to infinity!). But I think the criteria should be "is being used" and on that basis this subcat fails. tooold 14:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not very convenient and prone to misleading classification (the brand name Tru64 Unix was created after DEC was gone, Taligent was separate company never shipping, ownership of System V moved several times, HPUX was originally Apollo Computer Unix, etc). I am against the word owned, not against classification based where an OS was initially designed. Pavel Vozenilek 19:21, 31 October 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:Joseph Jenkins Roberts[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. Kbdank71 13:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This person is not notable enough to warrant a category. It is unlikely that there will ever be more than a handful of articles related to him. The ones that exist now are linked to from the main article Joseph Jenkins Roberts. Richard 04:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - 3 articles, easily linked. Johnbod 18:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as eponymous overcategorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - a clear case of over-enthusiastic category creation. Cgingold 13:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as eponymous overcategorisation. –-BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 31 October 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:Breeders' Cup Mile winners[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 per arguments by BHG. Kbdank71 13:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Breeders' Cup Mile winners to Category:Breeders' Cup Turf Mile winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The race was renamed the Breeders' Cup Turf Mile with the creation of the Breeders' Cup Dirt Mile in 2007. Currently, all the horses in this category won the race that is now called the Turf Mile. Dale Arnett (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a form of performer by performance category; there is already an excellent sortable list at Breeders' Cup Turf Mile, and a template would be a better aid to navigation than this category. Racehorses are already categorised. Racehorses are already categorised by year of birth, by nationality, by location of training, and by bloodline; categorising them by every race they win just leads to category-clutter.
If this category is deleted, then the other subcats of Category:Breeders' Cup winners should also be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 28 October 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:Computing by operating system[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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Over the last year I've been eliminating redundancies in the Operating System category by moving pages to the appropriate subcategories and deleting entries redundant with existing subcategory entries. Reducing the entries from about 240 to the current 140. Now I became curious about the category "Comuputing by operating system", wondering just why a system would be entered there as opposed to, say, operating systems. Noticing some redundant entries - of the 14 entries, 5 were redundant with the operating systems category - I deleted them. Continuing, one by one, the remaining nine entries were redundant with entries in operating system subcategories. Simple, normal with nothing lost or moved, editing had resulted in an empty (except for the operating system category!) category. I'll also assert, without proof, that the 14 entries were no more special, no more deserving of top-of-the-tree presentation, than other operating system entries. The category and the single reference to it can be deleted at any time. tooold 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-reasoned nom. Clearly superfluous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 19:22, 31 October 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:Wikipedia history[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; these do appear to be very different in contents and scope. Kbdank71 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia history to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: We have two categories: Category:History of Wikipedia and Category:Wikipedia history (one covers articles, the other project pages). The names are horribly similar and confusing. One or other needs renaming, and probably the project space one since thats internal use only - the article History of Wikipedia exists and the article category has that name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:History of Wikipedia the two categories largely overlap, and both contain articles. Perhaps after a sort out a subcategory could be made for non-article items. Johnbod 13:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:History of Wikipedia per Johnbod. On a quick scan, I can't see any clear difference between the the two, and once merged, more appropriate subcats could be designed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Perhaps the category content has changed in these few days, but the content of the two categories is clearly different. Category:History of Wikipedia includes only articles and is reader-oriented, whereas Category:Wikipedia history includes only project pages and is oriented toward editors. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:46, 2 November 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:War on Terror[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 relisted on Nov 2 because it wasn't tagged. Kbdank71 13:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming Category:War on Terror to Category:War on Terrorism

Nominator's rationale, see the discussion on Talk:War on Terrorism no consensus for the move of this page to "War on Terror"--Southern Texas 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge. The article (now War on Terrorism) seems to have had all its references to "War of Terror" changed to "War on Terrorism" very recently. But the phrase as used by President Bush and others is "War on Terror," and both the article and the category should reflect that.--Mike Selinker 04:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the phrase is "Global war on terrorism" and although it was initiated by George Bush his dialect should not obscure the term and as is noted on the talk page, although the name is more common it misrepresents its subject.--Southern Texas 05:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. The official White House website actually uses the phrase War on Terrorism in War on Terrorism FAQ, despite the fact that its leader doesn't. All right, that's at least enough to make me go neutral on the name change.--Mike Selinker 13:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Good to have the category conform with the article name. As also pointed out by nom, "war on terrorism" is, strictly speaking, a more correct terminology. Use of "terror" in this context just seems to be a lazy abbreviation for "terrorism" anyway, so we may as well use "terrorism" to avoid any possible confusion. Snocrates 08:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Good to see grammar winning out now & again. However to stop it growing uncontrollably can we make sure that the cat text includes a note that it relates to the "American" incarnation of the war on terrorism, and not everything else going on around the world. Ephebi 19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the category was not tagged at the time of nomination. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:12, 2 November 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:FIFA U-20 Women's World Championship[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. Kbdank71 13:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FIFA U-20 Women's World Championship to Category:FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup

Nominator's rationale: Rename. FIFA has officially renamed this tournament the FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup; I just moved that article to the new name. See FIFA's official events calendar for the name change. Dale Arnett (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:24, 2 November 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:Albums that rock![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: speedy delete as nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just a bit too subjective. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Indeed! Johnbod 01:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Crufty, useless, indiscriminate, subjective, frivolous, and unencyclopedic.--WaltCip 02:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it were up to me, I'd salt it as well, for reasons already well-articulated. — Dale Arnett 06:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk JuJube 09:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense and suggest that it's snowing. Otto4711 03:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no way to add or exclude objectively, this category can never be encyclopedic. Dethme0w 04:03, 28 October 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:IPCCWG1Contributor[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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There are many notable working groups of many notable organizations, categorizing people by their participation in them is very akin to performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:IPCC lead authors was already considered at length here, when being a lead author was considered significant. Expanding it out to all contributors runs the risk of creating a non-notable vanity list. Current list is one member of the Lead Authors group and one other whose notability seems to stem from being a member of this new category. Besides the name contains too many abbreviations and too little whitespace. Ephebi 20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeletepernomandperEphebi whitespace omitted per category name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 31 October 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.