Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 6

< October 5	October 7 >

October 6

Category:Islands of the Republic of Ireland

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 all. Kbdank71 13:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

and other landforms

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to include the word "county" in the names of these sub-categories of Category:Islands of the Republic of Ireland. The word "county" is needed for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town.
Each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the proposal for the reasons given by the proposer. (Sarah777 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Agree Sounds like a totally reasonable suggestion. ww2censor 00:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, for all of these noms (lazeeee!). Johnbod 03:17, 12 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:Townlands of the Republic of Ireland

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 all. Kbdank71 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to include the word "county" in the names of these sub-categories of Category:Townlands of the Republic of Ireland. The word "county" is needed for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town. (A "townland" is a small geographical unit of land used in Ireland and Scotland; confusingly, in Ireland it is predominantly a rural term.)
Each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the proposal for the reasons given by the proposer. (Sarah777 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Agree Sounds like a totally reasonable suggestion. ww2censor 00:44, 7 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:Australian cult films

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 to Category:Australian films. Kbdank71 14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as subjective. I was sad to see Cult films go, but we could never come up with an objective definition. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~all~~ per nom as subjective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What do you mean delete all? Australian cult films was the only category nominated. The rest is previous discussions. TheBlazikenMaster 21:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, there's only one, so I have struck out the "all". But I would support deleting any other such categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What does this mean exactly? Most movies have references to another culture, though they don't have DIRECT reference, they always have some. Notice the coke the guy is drinking at the bar? Notice the dolls in the background based on cartoons? Notice the DVDs in the room? I can have more of examples.TheBlazikenMaster 21:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I was speaking of American movies, and I think Australians are no exception. TheBlazikenMaster 21:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous precent that's been set. Lugnuts 08:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Australian films in particular shouldn't be split this way as it makes navigation very difficult -many films overlap with genres. They need to be recategorized as Australian films ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Australian cult films into Australian films per Blofield. Note my nomination was for cult films only, if someone wants to nominate other genre / country combinations thats fine, but they should make their own. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective. Carlossuarez46 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are clearly supposed to avoid "cult" categories. Doczilla 20:23, 7 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:Electric buses

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 14:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose renaming Category:Electric buses to Category:Electric buses (vehicles)

Nominator's rationale: Rename Ambiguity between vehicles that employ electric engines, and electric standards used in electric circuits (e.g. computers). --Koopa turtle 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This is technically correct, but is there really any likelihood that anyone other than an electronics engineer who had never heard of public transport would really think that Category:Electric buses referred to anything other than an electrically-propelled public service vehicle? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename for consistency with Electric bus (vehicle). LeSnail 21:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The name should be Electrical bus. The redirect for Electric bus (vehicle) was done by Koopa turtle without any input and should be reverted as well. Torc2 22:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An electric bus is not an electrical bus and they don't need a dab page. Even EEs don't get confused. Vegaswikian 00:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename (changing vote) --that's what I get for not performing due diligence. The more I think about it, the less ambiguous it seems. LeSnail 00:16, 7 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:Crvena Jabuka albums

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 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Crvena Jabuka albums to Category:Crvena jabuka albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename, correct caps per Crvena jabuka; non-English name of the band, so English language capitalization rules don't apply. GregorB 19:31, 6 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:Chattanooga Mocs men's basketball coaches

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. As much as I agree with BHG and the overcat issue, we already have Category:College men's basketball coaches and Category:College women's basketball coaches, which do a good job of dealing with not only men's vs women's sports, but also with teams that use the same name or different names (see Category:Florida Gators men's basketball coaches, Category:Florida Gators women's basketball coaches and Category:Arkansas Razorbacks basketball coaches, Category:Arkansas Ladybacks basketball coaches). Combining two differently named things into one category makes no sense. If a Lady Mocs category is needed, create it. Kbdank71 14:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I misunderstood what was being asked for here. The new result of the debate is rename. (Thanks Mike!). --Kbdank71 15:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chattanooga Mocs men's basketball coaches to Category:Chattanooga Mocs basketball coaches

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is another school that has different nicknames for men's and women's teams, with all women's teams being known as Lady Mocs. See the school's official athletics site. Dale Arnett 19:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:College basketball coaches and Category:Chattanooga Mocs basketball. This is rampant overcategorisation, one of a series of small categories for College basketball coaches subcats, with little room for expansion (see WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth). CfD usually deprecates triple intersections, but these quadruple intersections (college/sport/sporting role/gender) far too specific. The the other subcats of Category:College basketball coaches should also be upmerged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Dale. This is really just a triple intersection if you consider the women's and men's games to be separate sports, and these cats are a case where I'm happy to keep triples around. Many other schools have many more coaches in their cats, and it is also useful to mirror the categorization of the college basketball players. ×Meegs 05:37, 8 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.

More Irish county categories

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 all. Kbdank71 13:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish counties have an eponymous county town.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. LeSnail 18:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Ardfern 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. (Sarah777 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Agree Sounds like a totally reasonable suggestion. ww2censor 00:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Absolutely reasonable. --The.Q^(t)(c) 16:05, 8 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:Alumni of Elam Art School

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 oct 12. Kbdank71 14:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Alumni of Elam Art School to Category:Elam Art School alumni, per convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in New Zealand. LeSnail 16:09, 6 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:Religion in the Republic of Ireland by locality

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 all. Kbdank71 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Religion in the Republic of Ireland by locality to Category:Religion in the Republic of Ireland by county

Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. LeSnail 18:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Ardfern 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. (Sarah777 00:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Agree Sounds like a totally reasonable suggestion. ww2censor 00:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion reorder the place name and the 'type' of locality to the more intuitive "County {placename}" (i.e. Cork County, Dublin County, etc.) You'll notice many of the articles for each county are worded in that order. Cander0000 09:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are contradicting yourself. "{Placename} county" is a common usage in the United States, but it is very rarely used in Ireland, where your suggestion "County {placename}" is already the norm for the articles. The examples you cite in "{placename} county" format are reirect and a dab page; the county articles are in the format "County {placename}". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 8 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:National association of Biology Teachers past presidents

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 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already a list at List of National Association of Biology Teachers presidents, or at least Rename to Category:National Association of Biology Teachers presidents. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The list is better, although it needs cleanup. I have categorized Phil McCrea, so that no articles will be orphaned by deletion. LeSnail 15:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I not infrequently point out that having both a category and a list is not disallowed, in this case I see no compelling reason for a category. Cgingold 21:26, 6 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:Transport in the Republic of Ireland by locality

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 all. Kbdank71 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transport in the Republic of Ireland by locality to Category:Transport in the Republic of Ireland by county

Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Rename all per nom. LeSnail 16:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Ardfern 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. (Sarah777 00:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Agree Sounds like a totally reasonable suggestion. ww2censor 00:44, 7 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:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Ireland by locality

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 all. Kbdank71 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Ireland by locality to Category:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Ireland by county

Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. LeSnail 16:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Ardfern 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. (Sarah777 00:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Agree Sounds like a totally reasonable suggestion. ww2censor 00:44, 7 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:Geography of the Republic of Ireland by locality

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 all. Kbdank71 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Geography of the Republic of Ireland by locality to Category:Geography of the Republic of Ireland by county

Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. LeSnail 16:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Ardfern 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. (Sarah777 00:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Agree Sounds like a totally reasonable suggestion. ww2censor 00:44, 7 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:Sport in the Republic of Ireland by locality

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 all. Kbdank71 13:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sport in the Republic of Ireland by locality to Category:Sport in the Republic of Ireland by county

Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town.
Some spirting activities in Ireland are also organised at a provincial level (Munster, Leinster, Connacht, and Ulster), so I have moved those sport-by-province categories to the parent category Category:Sport in the Republic of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. LeSnail 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Ardfern 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. (Sarah777 00:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Agree Sounds like a totally reasonable suggestion. ww2censor 00:44, 7 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:Days observed in the Soviet Union

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 14:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Holidays in the Soviet Union, convention of Category:Public holidays by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Why not Category:Public holidays in the Soviet Union for consistency with the parent category and many others? LeSnail 16:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have Category:Holidays in Russia - this is public holidays by former country, and likely to confuse. Rename, preferably per Lesnail, but make a sub-cat of the Russian one in this tree. Should continuing holidays like Radio Day be in both? Perhaps yes. Johnbod 16:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Soviet Union included over a dozen states which are now independent, and should not be categorised under Russia. (It'd be a bit like categorising the British Empire under England). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 6 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:Alumni of University of Auckland

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 14:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:University of Auckland alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in New Zealand. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. LeSnail 16:04, 6 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:Tourism in the Republic of Ireland by locality

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 all. Kbdank71 13:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Tourism in the Republic of Ireland by locality to Category:Tourism in the Republic of Ireland by county

Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 14:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. LeSnail 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Ardfern 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. (Sarah777 00:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Agree Sounds like a totally reasonable suggestion. ww2censor 00:44, 7 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:Fictional fictional characters

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 to Category:Metafictional characters. Personal opinion ahead, has nothing to do with the closing: This has to be the stupidest category I've seen in about a week (what can I say, they pop up often). A "Fictional fictional character" by definition is a "Fictional character". Itchy and scratchy are characters that exist in fiction. Period. And look, there is Category:Fictional characters! Why the ever-loving need to oh never mind, nobody is going to read this anyway. All this from an article that has no sources and should probably be deleted (shakes head) . Kbdank71 14:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional fictional characters to something else.

Nominator's rationale: If I pronounce fictional fictional character I sound silly. I don't know what the hell this should be called, that's why I'm nominating it. I'm suggesting to rename it into a less silly tone, nothing else.. TheBlazikenMaster 13:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best guess... Metafictional charaters is what htis should be Renamed to. - J Greb 14:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Metafictional characters per J Greb. (fictional fictional makes my head spin too). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. This is dealing with a specific type of character and matches the lead article Fictional fictional character. See previous CFD which should have been linked by nominator. Otto4711 18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename for consistency with main article Fictional fictional character. Just because the standard name sounds silly doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. LeSnail 18:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename to metafictional characters - The proposed "metafictional characters" makes my head hurt. And although metafictional characters might sometimes be FFCs, are they always necessarily FFCs? And likewise, are FFCs necessarily MFCs? --lquilter 21:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - This is all too reminiscent of the Catch-22 character, Major Major Major Major. (Oh, if only we could have a category for that!) How about renaming both the category and the article, to Category:Fictitious fictional characters and Fictitious fictional characters. I will request input on this from the (presumably not fictitious) editors who have worked on the article. Cgingold 21:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Metafiction is the wrong direction. These characters aren't aware of their fictional universe or based on (directly) the fictional world they inhabit (i.e. fiction about fiction), with the possible exception of some in circular dependencies with there related fictional world (which one is real and which one is the fictional...). Maybe 'Nested fictional characters' like the article uses? Cander0000 09:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Not sure to what but currently this cat is silly and makes Wikipedia look silly. I also don't think consistency with the main article is a good enough reason to keep this cat as is, especially considering that article cites exactly zero references.IvoShandor 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Metafictional characters per J Greb and BHG. Doczilla 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per cgingold to fictional ficticious characters 132.205.44.5 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as heads are spinning, consider mine in full rotation over the use of the word "fictitious." Otto4711 12:32, 9 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:WikiProject Timeline Tracer Friends

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 already dealt with at UCFD.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete requested by author. This category is obsolete, new internal listing of members by level has been implemented Daoken 12:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy close or speedy delete as (a) this is something for WP:UCFD and a discussion is already taking place there about this; (b) in the alternative, author requests deletion both in that discussion and this one, and I can't see a compelling reason to deny that request. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:42, 6 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:Protoscience

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 oct 12. Kbdank71 14:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: unmaintainable due to the polysemy of the term. "protoscience" can mean (a) the pre-modern history of science, (b) scientific conjectures, (c) fringe science, all of which already have due categories. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I initially thought that this category seemed too disparate to be worth keeping, but on reflection it seems rather useful. Essentially it is a grouping of things which are not fully classifiable as scientific under the dominant contemporary understandings of science, and that seems to me to be an important grouping of ideas. I fear that if this category did not exist, subjects such as alchemy would end up being categorised as pseudoscience, which would be a historically inaccurate labelling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- you misunderstand. This isn't "useful", it's a problem. See the discussion at WP:FTN#.22protoscience.22. Alchemy is duly classified in Category:Esoteric schools of thought, Category:History of chemistry, Category:History of ideas, Category:Obsolete scientific theories --dab (𒁳) 20:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - most of what should go here belongs in the various history of sceince categories and this becomes a place for fringers to say "it's not pseudoscience it's protoscience" --Rocksanddirt 17:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - created (by me) due to the Alternative medicine article in 2004, along with Category:Pseudoscience. The word does mean something to the non-querulous - David Gerard 14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The word does mean something to the non-querulous" -- how does that justify a 'keep' vote? we don't create categories merely on grounds that a term exists. dab (𒁳) 09:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As things currently stand, it looks like this will probably be closed No concensus. I strongly urge the closing admin to relist it, as it is a very complex subject that really demands further discussion. I'm glad David Gerard dropped in (I posted a note on his talk page), and I hope he will have more to say, in response to my forthcoming comments.

I've only begun sorting through the array of issues that need to be considered in order to arrive at a well-grounded recommendation. First and foremost, this category is one of a group of related categories -- including Category:Pseudoscience and Category:Fringe science -- and needs to be evaluated in that context. (In fact, there is yet a fourth such category, Category:Voodoo science, which is such a hideously stupid name for a category that I just put it up for deletion a little while ago.) Besides the issue of the related cats, there is a whole lot more that needs to be discussed, which I simply don't have time to go into at this moment. But I will take that up when I find the time later today. Cgingold 15:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can still encourage some people to discussion. Normally nominations are closed seven days after the nomination started, so you should still have two days left. TheBlazikenMaster 16:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we can well keep the category around and insist that it be only used for the narrow sense of pre-modern topics. dab (𒁳) 09:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After spending a considerable amount of time rooting around in these categories and subcats, and reading a goodly number of main articles, as well as several lengthy talk page discussions, I've come full circle and can now say authoritatively, This is all a huge mess!

There have been any number of discussions of the same basic kinds of issues we're grappling with here, with little discernible progress towards resolving disagreements and achieving a stable concensus on choice and usage of terminology. Notwithstanding that, the articles Fringe science and Pseudoscience do seem to have arrived at a reasonably good delineation of their subjects.

Protoscience, however, has not achieved stability, and was recently completely overhauled -- resulting in a very different presentation of the subject -- by User:Dbachmann (who, I've just discovered, is none other than User:dab). This suggests that the notion of "Protoscience" may simply not be well-enough established (and defined) to serve as a functional category on Wikipedia. Although I have a pretty good sense of how I myself would use Category:Protoscience if I were put in charge of it -- in a nutshell, I would use it for fields such as Category:Astrobiology and Category:Evolutionary psychology -- the problem, of course, is that the criteria are bound to be construed and applied in rather different ways by the various editors who make use of it. Bottom line -- as much as I might like to use it in the way I described, all such judgments would surely have to be reached on the basis of WP:OR.

Dbachmann has suggested keeping the category purely for pre-modern topics. No doubt that would make it much easier to define and restrict, but I'm not sure that there's enough material to justify the existence of the category. What else would it be used for, besides Category:Alchemy and presumably, Category:Proto-evolutionary biologists? For example, what about Category:Astrology, does that qualify as a Protoscience, or is it just a precursor? Cgingold 15:16, 12 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 executed by burning at the stake

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 14:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People executed by burning at the stake to Category:People executed by burning

Nominator's rationale: YThe reason is simple and obvious why this should be renamed, not all people executed by burning are necessarily burned at the stake. Though a large number are, this would make the category more inclusive and sensible as a subcategory of Category:Executions by method. IvoShandor 09:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for greater inclusivity. It doesn't seem fair to discriminate against people who were burnt in the wrong way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions - There's a number of articles in there now, about 2 dozen. Are these all burning at the stake (as the category name implies)? How many people in WP are "burned" by methods other than the stake? Are there significant differences in the crimes for which these are the punishments that would suggest it reasonable to have two separate categories? Are other "burnings" done more or less humanely? I know, for instance, that burning at the stake was often a punishment for heresy & witchcraft; and that it wasn't uncommon for strangulation to precede burning at the stake as a humanitarian measure. I'm not familiar with other kinds of burnings as executions, although I know they have been used in the Holocaust, other genocides, and war -- is that what's intended to be included here? Or is it intended to exclude those war/genocide killings and only add in other individual-crime state executions by burning? Any sense of how many such things would be? --lquilter 21:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about those details, I do know that the article here is called Execution by burning and that I just wrote Execution of Lucy and James Sample who were tied to a tree a burned in a pile of wood, not really the traditional burning at the stake. I think the category implies individuals, as there are more appropriate cats for victims of genocide. IvoShandor 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically to me, having this category named as it is now is similar to having a category called Category:People executed by hanging with rope or Category:People executed by firing squad with rifles.IvoShandor 01:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, then. This last example made me ~~life~~ laugh (weird freudian slip) and pushed me over the edge to "rename". However, if the category populates over time and it turns out the types of burnings are notably distinguishable, then the rename shouldn't preclude revisiting the decision. --lquilter 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was just poking around the category a bit and there are articles about people who were burned but not at the stake. Though the article on execution by burning is nearly void of key references, it does describe some methods of burning that are referenced and are not at the stake. But subcats can always be made and populated as needed. IvoShandor 11:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. No reason to have a separate category for burnings at stake vs other burnings, as far as I can see. Snocrates 09:24, 7 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:Myanmar

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:Myanmar only. None of the subcats I saw were tagged for renaming. If you would like the subcats renamed as well, please tag them and nominate them separately. Kbdank71 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Myanmar to Category:Burma

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in line with WP:RM. See Talk:Burma#Requested move -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are well over 50 subcategories below in this category. As they are subcategories and not categories I have not tagged them. If they all need tagging let me know --Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-categories are categories - (almost) everything is a sub-cat of something else. Really they should be tagged. Johnbod 14:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Myanmar has been the standard name in U.S.-published atlases for 14 years. Georgia guy 13:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Category name should agree with that of the main article. No sense going through all the arguments at Talk:Burma#Requested move all over again here. LeSnail 13:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Lesnail, for consistency. Johnbod 14:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, for consistency, along with all subcats. The issue has been well-discussed at Talk:Burma#Requested move, and it would be silly to repeat that discussion here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The category should follow the article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the head category and most sub-cats - Since Burma existed for centuries prior to the recent renaming by the ruling military junta, much of the material in this category is improperly labeled under the name "Myanmar". However, we should give serious consideration to retaining certain sub-categories under the heading of "Myanmar" -- for example, Category:Foreign relations of Myanmar and Category:Military of Myanmar, and probably some others -- since they deal with issues that are specifically related to the country under its current name. Cgingold 22:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: rename main cat and all sub cats. The assertion that the topics in the subcats Category:Foreign relations of Myanmar and Category:Military of Myanmar, and probably others, are affiliated only with the junta is incorrect. Check the articles in the cats. IvoShandor 10:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've actually mischaracterized what I said; however, I took a another, closer look anyway, and I still think it's an open question on both of the subcats that I noted. The articles in Category:Foreign relations of Myanmar are focused on the current regime of Myanmar; in Category:Military of Myanmar, 5 of the 8 articles use "Myanmar" in their title. So I just want to be sure that the name change is thought through with those facts in mind before we go ahead with it. Cgingold 11:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote: However, we should give serious consideration to retaining certain sub-categories under the heading of "Myanmar" -- for example, Category:Foreign relations of Myanmar and Category:Military of Myanmar, and probably some others -- since they deal with issues that are specifically related to the country under its current name.

How I paraphrased it: The assertion that the topics in the subcats Category:Foreign relations of Myanmar and Category:Military of Myanmar, and probably others, are affiliated only with the junta is incorrect.

I don't see that as a mischarcterization, if it is I apologize, but that looks like it was what you were saying. IvoShandor 12:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, half of the articles in the foreign relations cat have Burma in their title. IvoShandor 12:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, I was merely pointing out that your paraphrase was off the mark: I didn't claim that all of the articles in those categories pertain only to the junta, but rather that the junta/Myanmar is the principal focus. I did note the name Burma in some titles, nonetheless the focus of those articles is on the foreign relations of the current regime in Myanmar. So I think there is reason to give serious consideration to retaining the name Myanmar in those categories. I'm not arguing that it is definitively the correct thing to do, I'm merely pointing out that these facts need to be evaluated so the question can be addressed and resolved, one way or the other. Cgingold 14:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Its not possible to choose an apolitical naming convention here. The UN recognises Myanmar, a name chosen by the ruling junta, but not USA & UK. Burma is still the commonly-accepted name in the modern English speaking world (as opposed to its older spelling of Burmah), and its democratic opposition parties. The WP article spells out the etymology of the name and has some useful links to the usage of the name. However, a point of order, the CfD template should be added ASAP to all subcats in order to draw it to the attention of their contributors. Ephebi 13:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support rename per WP:RM 132.205.44.5 03:22, 9 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:Running television shows

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 13:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a category just for television shows that are currently airing? Never mind that this category doesn't even contain most currently airing TV shows, just a small random smattering. And sometimes it's been added to a show's character list instead of the article on the show. Delete, sez me. Bearcat 03:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too volatile and ill-defined. TV is becoming a pull rather than push medium and so the concept is losing meaning. Colonel Warden 11:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_5#Category:Current_NHL_Head_Coaches
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_22#Category:Current_albums
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_16#Category:Current_singles
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_6#Category:Current_Seven_Network_shows
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_23#Category:Current_ESPN_personalities
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_6#Category:Current_British_MPs
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_10#Category:Octogenarian_Bishops
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_15#Category:People_currently_in_space
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_4#Category:Current_female_heads_of_state
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_27#Category:Current_Serie_A_players
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_28#Category:Current_Top_40
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_racehorses
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_California_State_Senators
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_Members_of_the_United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Armed_Services
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_27#Category:Current_FBI_Top_Ten_Most_Wanted_Fugitive
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_2#Category:Recent_deaths
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_5#Category:Rappers_currently_in_prison
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_9#Category:Current_political_office-holders
Delete, not suitable for print, mirrors, archives, or CD distribution, see also many precedents. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per ProveIt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Haven't we also deleted "cancelled TV shows" and the like? I think the start/end dates are sufficient. --lquilter 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is a show running between the season finally and the next season premier? Vegaswikian 00:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category is mostly just a leftover of the template In-progress-tvshow or something. Both that template and this category have stopped being useful a while ago I think. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Vegaswikian and is it running between each airing? Carlossuarez46 19:03, 7 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:Online Jewelers

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 13:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Jewellers, or at least rename to Category:Online jewellers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - some good Afd candidates here! Johnbod 01:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No benefit to classifying jewellers by their use of what is now a routine mode of doing business. --20:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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 Philippine radio stations

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 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Lists of radio stations, or at least Rename to Category:Lists of radio stations in the Philippines. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Lists of radio stations in the Philippines. If I were looking for a radio station in the Philippines, I wouldn't think to look for List of radio stations in Cordillera Autonomous Region floating around in Category:Lists of radio stations. LeSnail 13:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of radio stations in the Philippines per LeSnail. These list would get lost in Category:Lists of radio stations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 6 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 media files

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 close per WP:SNOW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Nominator's rationale: This and all the subcats store media. The storing of media is the purpose of Wikimedia Commons. It would be easier to find and use if we keep our media materials in one place. Having two places also duplicates material. Are there valid and convincing reasons for storing media on Wikipedia in addition to Commons? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy oppose or whatever. Yes, there are, as a look at the sub-cats shows - featured images, Picture of the day, fair use images etc etc. As long as we have images etc we should have a category structure to track them. Johnbod 00:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons also uses a category system for grouping together images. There is one for copyright status, for image source and featured pictures. The structure allows for the creation of the sorts of grouping you are talking about - if the cat is not already there, then one can be created. Unless there is a rule against creating a cat on Commons for "Wikipedia featured images"? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many images, especially fair use ones, cannot be uploaded to Commons, but can be here. The English Wikipedia should contain and control its own featured content. I also wish many users would upload to Commons & not here, but abolishing the category structure is certainly the wrong way to go about this. Johnbod 14:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator with too much time on their hands. This is an infrastructure category for Wikipedia as a working environment to write an encyclopedia, rather than an idealised semantic construct - David Gerard 14:12, 11 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.