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 per nom. --Xdamrtalk 15:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the first, there's no need for additional sub-categorization. As album and single covers are all categorized under Category:Album covers, these files should follow suit. The second would become redundant after the first merge, so might as well merge that as well. — ξxplicit 20:18, 15 November 2009 (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:Evangelical Church in Germany dioceses[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) is not a single church that has dioceses; rather, it is a federation of 22 independent churches. They don't even all belong to the same denomination: some are Lutheran, some are Reformed (Calvinist), and some are United (Lutheran and Reformed). +Angr 17:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see some merit in this proposal, but how can we instead rename this to reflect it is not a category for individual church buildings or congregations? Carlaude:Talk 17:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you suggest? Though I think "Member churches" is fairly clear; individual buildings and congregations would never be called "Member churches" of the EKD, would they? +Angr 18:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I am changing the template header to read "Regional churches" over "Regional Churches" since the term is not treated as a proper name in any other way in these articles; it seem to be just a capitalization error. Carlaude:Talk 22:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with calling them "regional" - both in the template and in the category - is that one of them, the Synod of Reformed Churches in Bavaria and Northwestern Germany, is not regional, but shares its territory with larger Lutheran churches (Bavaria, Hanover, and probably a few of the smaller ones in and near Lower Saxony). I could live with "Evangelical Church in Germany church bodies", though. +Angr 22:45, 15 November 2009 (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:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by Ethiopia[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Superfluous subcategory (striking the following as I eventually realize it's irrelevant this time)and a duplicate of an official WP:CRIME category. Also, grammar makes no sense. One of many categories like this. ♪daTheisen(talk) 16:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. (1) What other category makes this one superfluous? (2) What "official WP:CRIME" category is this a duplicate of? (3) What about the grammar "makes no sense"? Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – nom makes no sense. Occuli (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying: I'm taking back the WP:CRIME thing, since you seemed to have created the entire tree on your own I guess I can't say it was against your own personal consensus. Anyway-- this category is not mutually exclusive with Category:Ethiopian prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment. Though it's true that some non-native Ethiopians might be sentenced to life imprisonment by the nation and end up there, once sentenced they are all "Ethiopian prisoners" by definition. In other words, any that fall into this category absolutely must fall into the second, but it does not work the other direction since we do not know who sentenced persons who are already in prison.
keep (ctr.). Category:Ethiopian prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment is a category for people of Ethiopian nationality. The nominated category is for people imprisoned by Ethiopia. I disagree that people imprisoned by Ethiopia thereby become "Ethiopian prisoners". They do not, in the sense of nationality. A bio article could be in one category and not the other. An Ethiopian person can be sentenced to life imprisonment in Idaho or Azerbaijan, in which case she or he was not sentenced to life imprisonment by Ethiopia. Likewise, an American or Azerbaijani could be sentenced to life imprisonment by Ethiopia; these are not "Ethiopian prisoners" by nationality. These would be Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by Ethiopia (and Category:American prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment and Category:American people imprisoned abroad, etc.). The fact that there are currently only 1 article in each that is the same doesn't change the underlying meaning of the category structure. This is explained in the category definition; I'm not sure what about it is unclear. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:57, 16 November 2009 (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:Colleges and universities named after people[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 15:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category sorting by non-defining characteristic. TM 16:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe maybe should be in a list, but that's it. Is in a list and that should be it. Declan Clam (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having done a lot of work researching the list, I can testify that this is a non-defining characteristic that should not be the basis for a category. --Orlady (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's rationale: the defining characteristic is that they are named after people, i.e., they are eponyms. Wikipedia has a long, long list of eponyms categories, why not this one. It is very useful. My vote is Maintain, of course. R.Sabbatini (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is a list aready. So many colleges and universities are named after people. Carlaude:Talk 22:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also there's a problem with definition - is the University of Maryland named after Queen Mary? What about Jesus College, Oxford? Grutness...wha? 22:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is so common a characteristic of colleges that it serves no benefit for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2009 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The company has changed its name back to Statoil, the main article of this category is renamed correspondingly. Beagel (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Corporate name change and agreement on Talk:Statoil about the move of the article. Arsenikk(talk) 13:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename If this type of nomination hasn't met any resistance after two days (the speedy limit), it is sure to pass. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2009 (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.
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 the category. The if anyone wants to have the template deleted, they need to go to TfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete: An unmanageable category that could grow indefinitely. I don't object to redirect categorization per se, but a category of uncategorized redirects is wholly unsustainable and hardly readable, even less usable, by users; plus there are other ways to find uncategorized redirects. It's been used by SmackBot ([1]), but it can just remove the category. Cenarium (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a work category of things to be fixed per WP:TMR. The particular diff noted seems like it would be more appropriate as {{R from an incomplete name}}, but there are at least 4 different articles on various 81st Divisions. Maybe a dab is really what's appropriate. Only becomes unmanagable if nobody works the backlog. Jim MillerSee me | Touch me 04:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, people may have other priorities. Anyway, as I pointed out, this category is unusable (how to find a redirect without diacritics or from alternative spelling in it ? - it's not feasible manually with millions of redirects). There are other, better ways to find redirects to categorize; people aiming to categorize redirects don't use that category, they extract types of redirects directly from the database, then add categories automatically or semi-automatically. That's why the category is so small (and SmackBot stopped using it long ago): less than 5000 vs millions of uncategorized redirects - any attempt to automatically add the category would be rejected by BAG as too onerous for the site with very litlle gain. Cenarium (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; It's also a logical paradox, since once a redirect would be tagged for this category, it would no longer fit the criteria for the category. We also don't need to fill existing real article categories with 50 spelling variations if the goal is to put "proper" tags on the redirects. If a redirect gets visited via WP:TMR by someone working improvements, shouldn't you just put existing things on it?♪daTheisen(talk) 12:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As a matter of pronciple, redirects should be uncategorised. We are talking about categorising articles. If there is confusion over 81st Division between those of different countries or eras, there is a simple solution: convert the redirect into a dab page. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete virtually all redirects are not categorized, so this category would contain the vast majority of the redirects on wikipedia... 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most redirects should be uncategorized by default. I fail to see how this category could be useful towards improving Wikipedia. Also per Datheisen. VegaDark (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had not notice until now, there's the associated template {{R uncategorized}}. Is it too late to nominate it along? Cenarium (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category and template. Cenarium makes some very good points and I too believe BAG would reject any proposals for a bot to automatically add the category or template to redirects, making it a pointless effort to continue categorizing uncategorized redirects as uncategorized redirects... which sounds pretty silly just by itself. -- Ϫ 04:12, 21 November 2009 (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.
