Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 16 February 18 >

February 17[edit]

Category:Cycle races in...[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename both. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Spanish cycling races to Category:Cycle races in Spain and Category:Catalan cycling races to Category:Cycle races in Catalonia
Nominator's rationale: To fall in line with Category:Cycle races in France, Category:Cycle races in Belgium etc. SeveroTC 23:32, 17 February 2008 (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:Glossary of education-related terms (dictionary format)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, but in the future please do not empty a category prior to discussion. Kbdank71 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Glossary of education-related terms (dictionary format) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I have just emptied this category into its parent category, Category:Glossary of education-related terms, since it seemed to be an unnecessary layer. --Eliyak T·C 22:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put it back - please restore the content to this category so that we can all see what was in it and make an informed decision. Suggest that this discussion be speedy closed pending the restoration of the contents. Otto4711 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything that was in it is now in Category:Glossary of education-related terms, and nothing else. --Eliyak T·C 01:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure that anyone will understand what you mean by the above statement. All of the individual entries have been deleted. They no longer exist in either of the two categories. Dbiel (Talk) 20:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There have been a number of changes over time that have now made this category unnecessary. It was orignially created to separate the individual page entries for the lists of glossary pages which are listed below:
Glossary of education-related terms (T-Z)‎
Glossary of education-related terms (S)
Glossary of education-related terms (P-R)‎
Glossary of education-related terms (M-O)‎
Glossary of education-related terms (G-L)‎
Glossary of education-related terms (D-F)
Glossary of education-related terms (A-C)
But with the creation of Category:Education-related terms and the reorganization of the related categories, making Category:Education-related terms the new master category, and moving all of the individual entries out of Category:Glossary of education-related terms, Category:Glossary of education-related terms (dictionary format) is no longer needed. Dbiel (Talk) 21:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cities in District of Columbia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, do not rename per User:Matchups. Kbdank71 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cities in District of Columbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The District of Columbia has only contained one city, and is not likely to contain any others. Its sole occupant, Category:Washington, D.C., should be upmerged. This category was previously nominated in 2005 without consensus. If kept, the grammar should be fixed. Eliyak T·C 21:09, 17 February 2008 (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:Gaming[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge everything to Category:The Game (game) Seriously though, there is no consensus here to do anything vaguely resembling a typical CFD result (if you have to ask what the consensus is, there isn't one). As far as semantics go, the alternative titles "Gaming (games)" or "Games and gaming" border on tautological (cf. "propane and propane accessories"), and do very little to resolve the potential ambiguity of "Gaming". Short of using something meta-scriptural (though not quite self-referential) like "Game-related topics", I'm not sure what would, or even whether it's even needed as the current function of the category is to encompass all activities which could be considered a form of gaming (by gamers and non-gamers alike) which would easily include gaming, gaming, gaming, game theory, and especially gaming, possibly Gaming, but not The Game, the big game, wild game, or the Glass Bead Game. Note that adding the category description proposed by Mike Selinker does more to address the problem than any other solution proposed here. — CharlotteWebb 17:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gaming to Category:Gaming (games)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Gaming is ambiguous and must be disambiguated. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Perhaps it's ambiguous (though I don't see any other candidates such as Gaming (architecture)), but the existing use is undoubtedly the primary one (that's why they have the same name) and the proposed rename looks a bit silly (or at least redundant). If action is needed, it would be better to put a blurb at the top of the page, just as we do for articles which are potentially ambiguous, but where one use is sufficiently dominant to have an unparenthesized name (e.g., John Williams). Matchups (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This name was vacated when there was objections to using the first and a still significant use of this term from here. Gaming is the term for wagering and similar activities. It is the term used in legislation to authorize these activities and is the common name for the commissions that regulate these activities. So clearly there are two major uses and disambiguation is called for. We should really have Category:Gaming (games) and Category:Gaming (wagering) or something like that. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should also be noted that Gaming is a dab page for good reason. Besides being the name for several activities it is also a place name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If ambiguous, I'm not sure that "(games)" helps the matter. Can the nom explain more about the ambiguity? What concepts are confused with what, what are the defaults now, and what would the proposed overall fix be? --Lquilter (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gaming is used by the local and nation governments to establish wagering activities in their jurisdictions. In addition, the financial industry uses gaming to describe the wagering industry. The industry is gaming and not gambling! Gambling is an activity that gaming facilitates, it is not a valid description of the industry. That is a significant use of the term gaming. So clearly using gaming to describe one activity is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Parenthetical "(games)" doesn't make it any clearer, though. It seems like it would be better to have "gaming (gambling)", since gambling is basically an activity that can accompany some games (sports, cards, dice, etc.). --Lquilter (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it would be nice if we could establish a distinction by means of a category structgure between games that people play for amusement and fun (often at home or in social settings) from commerical gambling ('gaming' in the US wishy-washy term) and keep that distinction clear pretty high up in the category structure. Hmains (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gaming has been around for a long time and is used internationally. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As someone who works with both the recreational games and gambling industries, I've seen the term "gaming" grow to encompass both of these types of games. And that's exactly what it's doing here. Category:Games and Category:Gambling are rightfully subcategories of Category:Gaming, which should be a high level category that involves many sorts of competitive leisure activities.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting proposal. That would require some disambiguation at the lower levels to differentiate between companies producing games for the two or more different arenas. Would be nice to have the naming for this resolved if we go this way, however I suspect that this suggestion will be growing for a while as everyone figures out what is included making disambiguation naming a later task. Would you care to propose an introduction for the expanded category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something like This category is for the various forms of leisure entertainment that involve table games, video games, gambling, and many other such activities. This category is primarily for subcategories that deal with broad subjects in the various forms of gaming. perhaps?--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That could work. The part about using subcat addressed one of my potential concerns. I guess we could add your introduction and close this discussion as withdrawn since there is no support opinions yet. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like the idea of having something sensible resolved, if only to make Vegaswikian happy at last! "Gaming" as a broad parent category of "gambling" and other types of games sounds good. But does this include athletic games, also? It seems like it should: tennis, football, pingpong, etc., are certainly "games". --Lquilter (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something to Category:Gambling. Lets do the sensible thing, whatever the industry lobby say! Ok, sorry, I thought it was the sub-cat. There is a problem here, as discussed above. "Gaming" can refer to gambling/wagering and also to modern types of computer etc games, but not to many other kinds of games in that category - it is just not right to call the playing of Category:Flying disc games or Category:Ball games "gaming". I support the layout of the current structure, but none of the suggestions above are adequate. Not all "games" produce "gaming", so I think "games" needs to be in the category name somewhere. Category:Recreational games might be better, or something like that. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You want to put Category:Games, Category:Game theory, and Category:Game associations under "Gambling"? That doesn't make any sense, John.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnbod has convinced me that I'm in error. I'd like to propose a new direction: merge Category:Gaming into Category:Games. Then that category would look like Category:Sports, with types of sports mixed with other sport categories. Then we can have gambling under Games, sports under Games, role-playing games under Games, and so on, all with equal weight. We of course would have to clean out the resultant category of any straggling articles, but that should be done anyhow. What do people think of that?--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not convinced that would work. I realize that the structure of Category:Games would change, but right now it contains what the name implies, games. I'm not sure that the current article Game supports the level of expansion being proposed. In fact, Category:Games may well be ambiguous when you consider what is included in Games. This discussion is productive, we just need to identify and resolve the problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Games" of course is a plural category for articles about instances of "game", which is part of the problem. What about "Games and gaming"? --Lquilter (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got no problem with that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would the sub categories be? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per Johnbod below -- I wasn't proposing a new structure, just a name for the top cat. --Lquilter (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok with that - the sub-cats remain as they are, no? Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-voting question from the non-closing admin: Would the consensus be to rename Category:Gaming to Category:Games and gaming? Doesn't that leave Category:Games just flapping in the wind? I think I'll pass at closing this; my brain is beginning to hurt. --Kbdank71 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from U.S. states by county[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep per this and Jan 28 discussion. If it is desired that the other categories be renamed, please tag them appropriately and list them at CFD.. Kbdank71 17:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming six categories:
Nominator's rationale: Of the 49 categories in Category:American people by county, 43 have the name format "People by county in STATENAME". There's no difference between the states to require special names, and so it would seem more sensible to have all 49 on the same naming format. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Just FYI, not expressing an opinion yet, see a previous discussion from January 28 in which it was decided to rename these particular categories to consistently be "people from (state) by county". older ≠ wiser 20:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that when I made the nomination. With that in mind, it would be best either to rename these six or rename the other 43. Much easier to rename 6; but is either one in conflict with category naming conventions? Someone more familiar with those please provide an answer; all I usually do with categories is populate them. Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename others to match. "People from xxx by county" seems a bit clearer to me. --Eliyak T·C 21:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rename others as previously decided as a better naming pattern; who is going to implement the rename of the others so we don't have to go over this again (and again)? Hmains (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just like to note: I'm not trying to delete these categories; it's simply an attempt to get all 49 on the same format. I really couldn't care which way they're named, just as long as they make sense. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename others is the better solution these are people from State divided by county. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2008 (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:US Maoist or Maoist sympathizing parties[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Maoist organizations in the United States. Kbdank71 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:US Maoist or Maoist sympathizing parties to Category:Maoist or Maoist sympathizing organizations in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per the general rule of thumb for Org by Foo schemes and to expand the abbreviation. An alternative rename would be Category:Maoist organizations in the United States along with a purge of any group that was just "sympathizers" on the grounds that categorizing "sympathizers" is overcategorization by opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom to Category:Maoist or Maoist sympathizing organizations in the United States as a name of more clarity. And this is not about 'sympathizers' (meaning opinions of people); it is about 'sympathizing', meaning ideological positions taken by the organization. Hmains (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to something; at this point I support Category:Maoist organizations in the United States. I hear Hmains' point, but "Maoist organizations" appears sufficient to me. If the positions are sufficiently "Maoist sympathetic" that they are defining of the organization, then it seems to me that "Maoist" would be sufficiently descriptive. If the organization is only sympathetic on a few issues or mildly sympathetic or only sympathetic for one brief time in a long history, then it's probably not a defining feature of the organization. The use of "x sympathizer" as a slur, and the vagueness of the concept "X sympathizer", both suggest to me that including it in the category is asking for trouble. --Lquilter (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Maoist organizations in the United States. I concur with Lquilter's thoughts on the subject. Cgingold (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Maoist organizations in the United States per Lquilter, except the last line, where the ambiguity of how sympathetic one must be to be in or out and over what period is the problem, not whether sympatehizer is a slur, as many feel that sympathy even for those organizations with which they disagree under certain circumstances. Schadenfreude isn't universal. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really relevant to this discussion, but what? "Sympathy as a slur" isn't referring to the meaning of sympathy as in "Oh I'm sorry your party has been persecuted or disliked"; it refers to sympathy as in "Com-symp", "Are you a Communist sympathizer?" with bright lights and microphones and a vague air of menace. --Lquilter (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2008 (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.

Birmingham[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Hmains said it best with "Naming should always be based on clarity for the readers." If there is a possibility that readers (or for that matter, editors, as evidenced below) would be confused, we should correct the situation. Kbdank71 17:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The categories relating to the city of Birmingham are inconsistently named with each other, and with the related articles. By longstanding consensus all of the articles related to the city are uniformly named without the trailing England (eg Birmingham, Transport in Birmingham, Education in Birmingham, History of Birmingham), on the basis that the English Birmingham is by some distance the largest, oldest and best known, and is the one that all of the other Birminghams are named after. Some of the categories, however, including the root category, are named with the trailing England. These are therefore inconsistent with their article names - eg Education in Birmingham, but Category:Education in Birmingham, England - and often with each other - eg Category:Railway stations in Birmingham is a sub-category of Category:Rail transport in Birmingham, England. Should the categories not follow the same naming conventions and rationale as the articles? JimmyGuano (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Reverse merge all with the exception of Category:Birmingham which should be a dab category for the England and the Category:Birmingham, Alabama structures. Far too much potential for confusion with another moderately well-developed category scheme for another city of the same name in place. Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous similar cases though - eg Category:London vs Category:London, Ontario; Category:Cambridge vs Category:Cambridge, Massachusetts; Category:Manchester vs Category:Manchester, New Hampshire; Category:Worcester vs Category:Worcester, Massachusetts. In all examples the category names match the article names - the precedents are well-established. JimmyGuano (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I think of "London" for example the first one I think of is England. That's not the case for Birmingham. I realize that my own personal sample size of one is hardly definitive but the ambiguity's too great IMHO. Otto4711 (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge. The categories including the second level qualifier is much clearer and provides consistency in the names of categories. This is something that is sorely lacking in the article name space. I say follow the two level naming we are using. Following the article naming in this case is a poor way to go given the inability to reach a lasting consensus in those discussions. In addition the current article naming conventions support articles that are not the primary use being at the primary name space. And then there is the issue of a category for a place that is a single level being ambiguous plain and simple. To say that any of these are not ambiguous is problematic. Yes, some may actually be clear, but the inconstancy in the naming is then a problem. This not like the differences in the various forms of English that we use to justify naming variants like transport vs. transportation. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. While the article Birmingham conveniently provides a disambiguation link at the top, this does not work well for categories, since the category can be added without ever seeing the category page. In this instance, it seems the possibility for confusion is too great. --Eliyak T·C 21:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reverse merge regardless of the history/notoriety of a city, it is presumptuous to believe that all WP readers (who come from a variety of environments and education) will always think 'Birmingham' is in England; in the US, 'Birmingham' is in Alabama. Naming should always be based on clarity for the readers. Hmains (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because both Birmingham's are well-known in the world, both should be disambiguated in the categories, IMO. "Birmingham, England" and "Birmingham, Alabama". --Lquilter (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To really set the cat among the pigeons may I suggest Rename all to Category:...Birmingham, West Midlands, which IIRC is the correct naming convention. Oh, if only we could hear the place names - there's no confusion at all between "B'rum" and "Birminghaaaam". Grutness...wha? 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is correct per the naming convention then I can support a Rename/Merge into names using that format. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Category:People from Birmingham needs to be cleaned up manually since it contains people from the US and the UK. I think a delete may be in order after cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although the article is at present at Birmingham, it has earlier been at Birmingham, England and briefly at both Birmingham, United Kingdom and Birmingham, West Midlands. I would personally support Grutness' suggestion of renaming everything to Birmingham, West Midlands (per naming conventions - eg there is Lancaster, Lancashire on the previous day's cfd). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit misleading if you're trying to suggest that the article name is unstable or lacking consensus. The article has been at Birmingham without controversy or rancour for six years, apart from one undiscussed copy-and-paste move by an IP-address user in 2006 [1] which was quickly and uncontroversially reverted. The only controversy has been about whether the Alabama Birmingham is directly disambiguated from the Birmingham page or just from the dab page, which was resolved to general satisfaction in 2005 - [2]. JimmyGuano (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The population of Birmingham, England is one million, and of Birmingham, Alabama, a quarter of a million. Matchups (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the relevance of the population sizes. Otto4711 (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse rename to plain Birmingham. Brumigham existed for hundreds of years before its namesake in Alabama was named after it. As the second city of England, it does not need a suffix. "People from Birmingham, England (district)" (which contains only subcategories) should be deleted, the subcategories becomeing subcategories of "Poeple from Birmingham, England" or rather People from Birmingham (as it should be named). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sorts of things have disambiguated names depsite being older than other things with similar names. We've already seen in the course of this very CFD that there is confusion between the two Birminghams. Otto4711 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I think disambiguation is needed, and "West Midlands", even if technically correct, will no doubt confuse many from -say- India. Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No more so than having the other one at Birmingham, Alabama rather than Birmingham, United States. Many places are disambiguated by county or subregion names and - as pointed out - that would be the naming convention should the English one need a disambiguator. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Town, state is standard for the US. If we in the Uk kept the names stable for more than 20 years at a time it might be viable for us too. As it is, no. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all unless we move the article about the English city to Birmingham, England. Apparently the editors there see no ambiguity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2008 (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.

Golden Globes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 15:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Standardizing to the format of Category:Academy Award winners, per the precedent of this discussion on Best Original Song winners.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename all - I've wondered repeatedly why these "winners" categories didn't have the word "winners" in them. Otto4711 (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • listify and delete - I thought that was the usual solution to these award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certain big ones get to survive, and the Golden Globes are the second or third biggest film awards, depending on how you feel about the Cannes Film Festival.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2008 (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:Governor Bill Clinton[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Governor Bill Clinton to Category:Bill Clinton
Nominator's rationale: Merge - category is redundant. I get where the cat creator was going with it but the material doesn't really warrant being separated out in a subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2008 (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:Largest Cps schools[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: speedily deleted by User:Vegaswikian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Largest Cps schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No content; appears to be little more than one user's test edit. Whoville (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as either nonsense or empty category. (I would forego the 4-day rule on the grounds that it does not appear that there is any intention to populate the category.) Matchups (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2008 (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:Civil liberties[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: relisted on feb 25. Kbdank71 16:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Civil liberties to Category:Civil rights
Nominator's rationale: Merge, because the two concepts of civil liberties and civil rights are so closely-related that maintaining separate category trees for the two requires either duplication of categories or arbitrary divisions. I am aware that there are are distinctions between the two concepts, such as the "freedom from" vs. "freedom to" split, and a distinction between what concepts of "natural rights" and "legal rights" … but while those distinctions are important to lawyers and legal theorists, I think they are probably too subtle to make for a useful split in categorisation.
I am not 100% certain about the merits of this merger, and I certainly don't want to be dogmatic about it, so I will remain neutral for now and ask for comments from WikiProject Human rights and WikiProject Law. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator notified creator Cgingold with {{cfd-notify}} and placed {{cfdnotice}} at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law
  • Comment - I like putting these two together. If people feel strongly about one or the other term and there is no consensus, a combined title could work, too: "Civil liberties and civil rights" or "Civil rights and civil liberties" --Lquilter (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge According to Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition, Civil liberty is the second definition of Civil Right. Specifically, a civil liberty is a right against government interference. A Civil Right includes not only a right against interference, but in some cases, an affirmative right to do or say something. The 1st Amendment has both as demonstrated by the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Civil Rights include Civil Liberties. The distinction lies in "important liberty interest" which is different from a "fundamental right." Free public education is an important liberty interest, but not a right under the Constitution. see San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973). It would be beneficial to have a category that would include articles involving important liberty interests that do not enjoy strict scrutiny review, such as Category:Liberty interest. The distinction may be subtle, but it is not significant. Other important liberty interests include "personal reputation." There is some controversy over whether some issues are either a civil right or a liberty interest. Legis Nuntius (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you think we should go with "Civil liberties" as the somewhat broader of the two? --Lquilter (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to "civil rights," matching other such categories as "Human rights," etc. Sub-categories will also need to be renamed; these are (as far as I can tell):
--Eliyak T·C 21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment so far. If 'civil rights' is used only/mainly in the US, and 'civil liberties' is more widespread/understood, then 'civil liberties' should be used. If they are different, both should be used. We have two distinct arcticles civil rights and civil liberties. Can these two articles be merged and still be correct? Hmains (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated I can't say how widespread the phrase "civil liberties" is outside the US (I haven't really encountered it outside of college classes), but the phrase "civil rights" is such a fundament in the US that I'd be loath to see it go. (It's 5:1 in favor of "rights" on Googlefight.) I would merge all civil liberties categories to their equivalent civil rights categories, and the article as well. But I suggest that from a US perspective. Can someone point to sources that use "liberties" in a modern British or other non-American English context?--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First, I want to thank BrownHairedGirl for opening up a thoughtful discussion on this important question (and also for taking time to notify me and the two WikiProjects about the CFD). Given that Category:Civil rights could potentially end up being merged and/or renamed (as suggested by Lquilter), I've posted notice of this CFD on that page as well. I do think the distinctions between these concepts are significant, but I'm going to take some more time to research and reflect on this question before I post a substantive comment as to what should be done. However, I'm a little concerned that people seem to be jumping on the "merge" bandwagon before differing views have been fleshed out. Cgingold (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some looking around on the internet to find distinctions between civil rights and civil liberties. What I found is that the civil rights movement accepts pretty much all the things the civil liberties advocates care about, plus sometimes reaches for more. Interestingly, all the liberties that civil liberties people mention are listed as rights: the right to speech, the right to marry, the right to be free from unwarranted seizure, etc. But the civil rights movement does frequently look for concepts like affirmative action or disability access. These are clearly not liberties spelled out in the Constitution and other documents, but they're reasonably folded into rights if they are enacted. So I'd say the desire to avoid temporary status in categorization suggests that all civil liberties that are currently defined are civil rights, and those that are sought will become rights if they're adopted. So I'd say civil rights covers it. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename as suggested by Lquilter. While there are important distinctions, on balance I believe users are better served by merging these two categories. However, I think it is useful & important to retain both terms in the name of this parent category, since both concepts will be covered. It also affords us a little more flexibility in terms of how we deal with all of the sub-categories. My proposed name for the new merged category is Category:Civil rights and liberties -- I don't think we need to repeat the word "rights" "civil" [oops]. One other thing -- there should be redirects to the new category from both of the existing categories. Cgingold (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - Please relist this for further discussion, and to give participants an opportunity to consider my alternate proposal. Cgingold (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this proposal -- defter than mine -- and relist would be helpful. --Lquilter (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too like this proposal, but I also agree that at this point a relisting would be appropriate, since this discussion has been open for an unusually long 8 days. I'd also like to add that while there haven't been very many contributions, it has been great to see how this has been an unusually reflective and analytical CfD, free of the partisanship into which these discussions often descend. Congrats to all involved :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge both to Category:Civil rights and civil liberties I have just been reading various Google-found articles on civil rights and civil liberties and re-reading the WP civil rights and WP civil liberties articles. As a result, I come here to propose the categories be merged to a new category named 'Civil rights and civil liberties' to be all inclusive and also to make sure that both the term 'civil rights' and the term 'civil liberties' appear in the name so that searches will pick up on either name. Hmains (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fire Departments[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 merge. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fire Departments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Redundant category due to Category:Fire departments Richmeistertalk 11:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge - obvious duplicate. Otto4711 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2008 (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:Infomercial[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Infomercial to Category:?
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I was going to suggest renaming to Category:Infomercials, but it is a list a people and companies and the like for people known for using infomercials. Not sure what name fits best but the current one is wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - categorizing people based on the sort of advertising media they employ is overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No opposition to deleting if that is where consensus leads. However I do wonder if there is a reason to have a Category:Infomercials and if so then a rename here might be OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unless there are individual articles about specific infomercials, these belong in Category:Television commercials. I don't think a distinction based on the length of a commercial is useful. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all infomercials are commercials and vice versa in someone's POV (although we use commercial even if the advertising is for a non-commercial entity in the US). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (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:Chain companies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chain companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Name and category are confusing and in the end ambiguous. Seems to be association by name. With only two entries deleting is not a issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge to Category:Companies - overcategorization based on the fact that both of the subcats happen to use the word "chain." Nothing is gained from a categorization standpoint here. Otto4711 (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - The subcats don't "happen to" use "chain"--they both use the same word in the same sense because they are conceptually related. It's not like we had "Hotel chains," "Companies that make chains," and "Movies about chain gangs." This is a clear, sensible category with many more potential members, such as "Theater chains," "Supermarket chains," etc. However, I agree that the name is confusing and suggest renaming to "Chain Store Companies." Matchups (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what is a Chain Store Company? Aren't these really brands or franchises? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say as I see any organizational utility in maintaining this layer of categorization between the parent companies category and the subcats for specific chains. Otto4711 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created the category to group these seemingly similar categories. I would oppose merging these categories to Category:Companies. They would go better in Category:Brands by product type or Category:Franchises. --Eliyak T·C 22:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are already included in the category for the business that they are in. If they need other categories they can be added, but I'm not convinced of that. In any case, deleting the category does not hurt since the companies are already members of Category:Companies as children of various levels and in some cases already members from multiple sub categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One was already included in Category:Brands by product type and now both are. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of Wicked[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People of Wicked (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; performers should not be categorized by performance. See Wikipedia:OCAT#Performers_by_performance Matchups (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} and placed {{cfdnotice}} at Talk:Wicked (musical) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre

  • Keep - This category not only includes performers but authors, crew, staff, and all people who have anything to do with, not only the performances of Wicked but the novels, and creation of the international production. This is a useful categorization of people. Scottydude talk 04:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious performer by performance overcategorization. We simply do not categorize performers by their performances and including authors, crew, staff etc. doesn't save it. Otto4711 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The relevant people are mentioned in the Wicked article. This is an unnecessary and redundant category. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is essentially a recreation of Category:"Wicked" Actors , which was deleted in This CFD in November of 2006. Since then, we have created guidelines to discourage categories like this one. It is just as useful (if not better) to create lists with this information instead, and much better for the categorization system as a whole. Anyone wishing to understand this issue in more depth should read through the CFDs that removed all the categorization of performers by their performances. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scottydude. Tim! (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Sam, WP:OCAT and WP:CSD#G4. Happy‑melon 10:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Redundant, incomplete, almost inherently biased. - Dafyd (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No performer by performance categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Performer by performance" isn't just applicable to entertainers, and is roughly the equivalent of "people by association". It's not a good model for categorizing people, because each person has many, many associations, with other people, entities, and so on, and the nature of the association itself is not specified by the category, leaving it altogether too vague. --Lquilter (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of dubious research value; essentially a collection of loosely-connected individuals. —  MusicMaker5376 19:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete and listify if necessary - Deletion of "performer by performance" categories has been a WP standard for some time. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2008 (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:Alternative energy economics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. A few of the delete comments were based upon the amount of articles in the category, which would appear to be satisfied by Johnbod's work in populating it. Kbdank71 16:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alternative energy economics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This is a clear case of unneccessary overcategorization, very little potential for growth beyond a possible main article. The lone article is already very well categorized. Cgingold (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Notified creator with {{cfd-notify[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that if ever there was a topic with potebtial for growth, this is it! I bet many existing articles could be added to it. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly have nothing against this category in principle, and there's no question that the parent cat, Category:Alternative energy, will see a great many new articles. But I'm pretty dubious about the likelihood of enough articles on this particular topic actually getting written that would warrant keeping this category. I could certainly be proven wrong, but I just don't see it happening any time soon. Cgingold (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. If someone comes along in the future and is able to create a well-populated category, I would support retaining it. Matchups (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a few articles - many more might well belong, but I don't know the field well. There are a huge number of articles in the field, I find. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Forbes Energy in this category? It seems to be a discussion of an alternative energy company, but not of economics. Matchups (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unncessary, overcategorization. Alternative energy is a vague jargon term. Using Category:Renewable energy or existing energy and power categories is sufficient. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There may be something in that, but we are not discussing Category:Alternative energy. I might support merging that with renewable, but keeping an economics sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod's work in populating the category. Rename to "Renewable energy economics", if "Alternative energy" and "Renewable energy" are merged, is fine. --Lquilter (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "alternative" is a buzzword and wholly ambiguous - undoubtedly meaning something renewable like Lquilter suggests, but people have strong views on whether say, ethanol is really an "alternative" energy given its carbon footprint, or nuclear is an "alternative", or whether LPG is "alternative" etc. etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2008 (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:Million Man Movement[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: empty and delete. — CharlotteWebb 16:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Million Man Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This strikes me as overcategorization, as there are just three articles with little potential for growth that I can see. The articles can be located easily in the parent Category:Nation of Islam. Cgingold (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}}[reply]
  • Delete - everything is already located in the parent category anyway, which incidentally could use a little re-organization itself. Otto4711 (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_17&oldid=1138390121"