Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 4 September 6 >

September 5[edit]

Category:Ecology of Africa[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. --Xdamrtalk 10:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging and then deletion Category:Ecology of Africa to Category:Natural history of Africa
Nominator's rationale: Inapprop category name. Not likely to be populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Africa is not a political unit. The arguments for the others doesn't seem to apply at all See the examples below for America. book titles Wild Africa : exploring the African habitats. Ecology of African pastoralist societies, Man's environmental predicament: an introduction to human ecology in tropical Africa, and, finally, the journal title African journal of ecology. There are a few thousand more. DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say Africa is a political unit?? Admittedly ecologyat a continent scale is better than a country, state or territory scale. You are equating books with WP categories. This is a bit of a long bow. Categories are the equivalent to the Dewey or LC classifications. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If hundreds of books are written about a general topic,iit shows , first, that there is a strong probability of there being a great number of smaller topics within it that probably could have articles, and that there is a common distinctive theme. One book doesn't show it, but when there are enough to show that it's an entire field of study & writing, both popular and scientific, then they do. And, speaking of LC classification, LC has subject headings such as "ecology--Brazil" and many others DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – I get the impression that the nom merely objects to the word ecology. Occuli (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What??!! Lets keep our eye on the ball rather than making assumptions about whether I object to the word ecology. I do object to the word being used incorrectly. WP must be very careful about the use of words. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all There are different uses of the term "ecology" (which, perhaps thanks to the nom, are not properly explained at that article) and this is a POV effort to suppress use of one of them. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are different uses of the word ecology and here at WP we must spell out in which context it is being used. WP categories should use the most prevalent use of the word (ie ecology). As for the being POV I have no idea what you mean. And how can I suppress stuff on WP. It is open editng, consensus driven with all page histories being able to be viewed. Please use debate and discussion rather than dubious demeanor!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as these both categorize different defining characteristics. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they are different, then why is one the parent of the other? Vegaswikian1 (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for two reasons 1. category contains only 1 subcategory 2. all argumets mentioned before to keep "per coutry" categories don't apply. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 7 September 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:Ecology of the United States[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. --Xdamrtalk 10:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ecology of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Ecology is the study of ecosystems and does not end at political borders. Ecology has often been confused with environment (biophysical) or environmental issues. WP should avoid confusing readers. The contents of the category can be moved to more appropriate categories. The category is not likely to be populated since the more approp Category:Environment of the United States, Category:Natural history of the United States exist.

See also:

I agree that we should categorise things that follow the general trend in the real world but we should also consider the ease of navigation for a reader. This category, at least at this stage of WP content (due to low popn of the cat), is overcategorisation that can confuse a reader. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – per DGG. Occuli (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are different uses of the term "ecology" (which, perhaps thanks to the nom, are not properly explained at that article) and this is a POV effort to suppress use of one of them. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are different uses of the word ecology and here at WP we must spell out in which context it is being used. WP categories should use the most prevalent use of the word (ie ecology). As for the being POV I have no idea what you mean. And how can I suppress stuff on WP. It is open editng, consensus driven with all page histories being able to be viewed. Please use debate and discussion rather than dubious demeanor!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well-defined category for a defining characteristic, even if the name may cause confusion to some. While most political borders are not barriers to ecological characteristics, the US is certainly large and varied enough to justify the ctaegory, which serves a different purpose from the environment and natural history cats. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per argument below in the nomination of Category:Ecology by country
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:Ecology by country[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. --Xdamrtalk 10:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ecology by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Ecology is the study of ecosystems and does not end at political borders. Ecology has often been confused with environment (biophysical) or environmental issues. WP should avoid confusing readers. The contents of the category can be moved to more appropriate categories. The category is not likely to be populated since the more approp Category:Environment, Category:Natural history exist.

See also:

Sure "it can be studied that way" but it does not have to be categorised that way. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - this is a repeat cfd by the same nom. See June 2009. The last time the nom had personally emptied and disorganised the categories before the cfd. Occuli (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are different uses of the term "ecology" (which, perhaps thanks to the nom, are not properly explained at that article) and this is a POV effort to suppress use of one of them. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are different uses of the word ecology and here at WP we must spell out in which context it is being used. WP categories should use the most prevalent use of the word (ie ecology). As for the being POV I have no idea what you mean. And how can I suppress stuff on WP. It is open editng, consensus driven with all page histories being able to be viewed. Please use debate and discussion rather than dubious demeanor!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well-defined category for a defining characteristic that serves a different purpose from the environment and natural history cats. Alansohn (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the subject of ecology is covered by natioanl media and treated by national governments. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 7 September 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:Donkey Kong characters[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Donkey Kong characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't have enough articles to require a full category. TTN (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Donkey Kong. I agree with TTN's assessment of the need for this category, but we should upmerge so that the articles remain in the Donkey Kong category tree. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge since with 2 articles is too small. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 7 September 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:Anime and manga about music[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 Category:Anime and manga about music to Category:Music-themed anime and manga. --Xdamrtalk 19:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anime and manga about music to Category:Musical anime and manga
Nominator's rationale: In order to agree with the naming of similar xxx anime and manga categories viewable in Category:Anime and manga by genre. --十八 21:28, 5 September 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:Living museums in New York 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: Speedy Delete. WP:CSD#G7 - At author's request. --Xdamrtalk 20:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:Living museums in New York was broken down into too many sub categories that are no longer needed. There are not enough museums to populate each sub category. I proposed the deletion of the following sub categories:

Category:Living museums in Erie County, New York
Category:Living museums in Essex County, New York
Category:Living museums in Monroe County, New York
Category:Living museums in Montgomery County, New York
Category:Living museums in Nassau County, New York
Category:Living museums in Onondaga County, New York
Category:Living museums in Staten Island

I apologize if this is not correct format for this discussion topic. Jllm06 (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- all categories are now empty, presumably as a result of an out-of-process merge to the parent catgory. Otherwise I would have said merge as nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created most if not all of these in a good faith, but poorly planned design. Jlim06 and I had talk page conversations about just this point, and I agree moving them up to the "Living museums in New York" page is the correct action. I just put db-author on them so hopefully we can speed these up.... dm (talk) 00:58, 6 September 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:Directorial debut films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was 'Keep'. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Directorial debut films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - if the only commonality between these films is that they happen to be the first film by a director then I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value of it. The first film by, say, a freelance Lithuanian director in 1932 seems to have nothing in common with a first film by for instance a contracted Hollywood director in 1951 or a self-financed independent Canadian director in 2003. Otto4711 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The parent category Category:Debuts by medium has not been CFDed, and until a broader discussion happens, I'm loathe to support singling out the film category for deletion. Also, I do believe there is a commonality between all the examples offered: and it is simply that it is their first (professional, we have a student film cat, now) film. And whether one is a Baltic director in '32 or a freelance filmmaker in Toronto today, I do believe that's a pretty big and defining deal. I guess your point about a Hollywood contract director in the studio system days is that it's less "his" (or her) film and that's likely very true, but still doesn't sway me to delete. There's no easy way to listify this, so deleting the category would be a real loss, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The easy way of listing it would just be to list the category contents, if such a list is deemed desirable. I'm still not seeing what links Bambi II to Filth and Wisdom to The Natural History of Parking Lots to The Goddess to Journey's End (some of which are in the category; others not). What does knowing that each of these is the first film by a director (whose name is unknown from the category) tell us about any of the films, any of the directors or any supposed relationship of the films or the directors to one another? Otto4711 (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started with this category because it was added to a couple of articles on my watchlist. I didn't realize there were other debut categories, but yeah, I think I feel the same way about them too. Otto4711 (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll follow this discussion to see if there is anything that decisively tips the scales for me towards changing my vote. And if this category is deleted, I'll nominate the others, just on a procedural basis if nothing else. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but consider listifying to Talk:List of directorial debuts/Category list. It seems to me that this category exists more to present information within articles, something that categories are not intended for, rather than to create a meaningful grouping for purposes of navigation between articles. However, I believe that the information could be incorporated into the existing list. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 02:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the first professional works by various creative artists strikes me as very interesting way to group a set. I can see wanting to datamine to find what the commonalities and differences between debut works are. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting suggestion, but I don't think that deletion of the category would prevent someone from datamining, since they could do the same using content from the list of directorial debuts. Also, while the category function can be used to create groupings on the basis of any characteristic, Wikipedia categories are supposed to reflect established and logical groupings for the purpose of facilitating navigation between related articles, not to provide raw data for research. In any case, any such research done by an editor would be inappropriate for the encyclopedia (Wikipedia:No original research). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 03:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Defining attirbute to each film. To use Otto's rationale - a Lithuanian film from 1932 would have nothing in common with a Hollywood film of the same year, so why keep Category:1932 films, for example? We do, because it's defining. Lugnuts (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, what is the link between films made decades apart with no people in common, just because it is a first film? To answer your question, films made in the same year can share cultural and technological features, something that debut films do not. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant category, important in the study of film. The study of film by director is one of the basic theoretical approaches. Useful for browsing, also. "The first movies someone makes" seems a very reasonable idea. Should be a list also-- they're complementary. DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite the evidence that directorial debuts without anything else in common is a theoretical approach, basic or otherwise. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; directorial debuts are significant and defining, IMO. The same could not be said for, e.g., swan songs (a director's final film), except perhaps for those directors who knew that it would be their final film. =) Powers T 13:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A first film, just as a Category:Debut novels, is a strong defining characteristic that is used in the real world as a means of categorizing films. Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shawn in Montreal. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, defining of the films and a common comparison to make in film studies and reviews. Postdlf (talk) 15:56, 8 September 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:Dragon Ball episodes[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 Category:Dragon Ball episodes to Category:Dragon Ball episode lists. --Xdamrtalk 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dragon Ball episodes to Category:Dragon Ball episode lists
Nominator's rationale: More correct name for the category as all entries are lists; mirrors Category:Bleach episode lists -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:58, 5 September 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:20th-century American football running backs, etc[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 all six—the categories are empty and nothing needs to be merged. Ruslik_Zero 07:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:20th-century American football running backs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:21th-century American football running backs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:20th-century Canadian football running backs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This kind of detail for a category is ridiculously unnecessary. Sorting by position AND century? Why? A player's article indicated what century he lived in. It's just unnecessary. ►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have combined 3 identical nominations, which needd to be discussed together. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to position/nationality -- categorisation by century is itterly unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to position/nationality. I don't know why user:Mayumashu is so insistent on creating these unnecessary categories and cluttering up cfd in the process; unfortunately they can be created more quickly than they can be removed. Occuli (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If these are unnecessary, as most users who have talked about them here of late feel, it seems, then there needs to be nomination/discussion on Category:People by occupation and century. As long as that supercategory page exists, each bio should have some link to it. I put the detail in thinking the lists would be too long, but now see, again from recent comments, that likely the long lists are more popular (eg. Category:20th-century sportspeople and not Category:20th-century male football (soccer) forwards etc.) Mayumashu (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem seems to be overcategorization at the position level. I generally don't have an issue with the top-level categories and have no interest in nominating or discussing those. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The soccer project guys are trying to see them removed at the by sport level with the following nomination [1], so I don t know. There should be consistency amoungst different sports on at what level these cats are refined or kept broad Mayumashu (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all categories listed above to position/nationality. These century categories are perfect examples of overcategorisation. So what if an individual lived sometime in one arbitrary hundred year period as opposed to another. Is there any difference between a player who played in the 1990s and one who played in the 2000s? None whatsoever. There's much more difference between one who played in the 1920s and one who played in the 1990s. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 9 September 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:Graduates of Oxford School of Drama[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 Category:Graduates of Oxford School of Drama to Category:Alumni of the Oxford School of Drama. --Xdamrtalk 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Graduates of Oxford School of Drama to Category:Alumni of the Oxford School of Drama
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard category naming, cf. Category:People by educational institution in England or Category:Alumni by university or college in England. Tassedethe (talk) 16:22, 5 September 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:Grade B listed churches in London[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 Category:Grade B listed churches in London to Category:Grade II* listed churches in London. --Xdamrtalk 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Grade B listed churches in London to Category:Grade II* listed churches in London
Nominator's rationale: Merge. As explained in the listed building article grade B, in the context of English Anglican churches, is a now defunct grading scheme equivalent to grade II*. I suggest upmerging to Category:Grade II* listed churches in London (which also explains the old grade B rating). Tassedethe (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. GRade B is obsolete. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. It's unnecessary to make a distinction between the obsolete Grade B and the current Grade II*. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 9 September 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:Philippine political scandals[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 Category:Philippine political scandals to Category:Political scandals in the Philippines. --Xdamrtalk 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Philippine political scandals to Category:Political scandals in the Philippines
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming per Category:Political scandals by country. Tassedethe (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match entries in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nominator. This is speedy criteria #4. Debresser (talk) 11:03, 7 September 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:Gotra[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 Category:Gotra to Category:Gotras. --Xdamrtalk 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Gotra to Category:Gotras
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Redundant cat, examples of Gotra should under the correct plural cat. Tassedethe (talk) 14:39, 5 September 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:Poland–Czech Republic relations[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:
--Xdamrtalk 18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Poland–Czech Republic relations to Category:Czech Republic–Poland relations
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Standard naming for bilateral relations categories is alphabetical by state. See below and earlier discussion. Tassedethe (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that the same principle applies re spacing a standard dash – Poland-Czech Republic sounds like a republic owned in some joint way by 2 entities. Occuli (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to alphabetical order, oppose use of non-standard keyboard character in category names as a barrier to navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to alphabetical order, oppose use of non-standard keyboard character in category names as a barrier to navigation. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge to alphabetical order, Support matching titles of parent articles, even where non-standard keyboard characters are used, as an aid to consistent matching of categories and associated articles in category names. Despite the often proffered claim that non-standard characters are "a barrier to navigation", no one types category names other than those who create and edit articles and the fact that we have no issues with other special characters. Alansohn (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Occuli (include space per WP:DASH). I also agree with Alansohn here. (Can somebody bronze this statement for me, please?) There may be some merit to banning all non-standard characters from categories, but until we do, I don't see a good reason to single out the en-dash. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to alphabetical order, oppose use of non-standard keyboard character in category names as a barrier to navigation. Garion96 (talk) 17:35, 7 September 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.

Bilateral relations[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:
Consensus for use of nouns and alphabetical ordering of country names - no consensus on fraught, vexed, and tedious question of use of non-standard keyboard characters. Therefore I have decided to set all WP:DASH issues aside and rename all categories to be consistent with Category:Czech Republic – Poland relations above. Editors who continue to feel strongly about the dash issue are advised to make this specific point the subject of a group nomination. --Xdamrtalk 18:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is to achieve consistency in the naming of bilateral relations categories and follows a much larger renaming last year (see here). The renaming follows the principles laid out there: 1) The use of longdash (–) (per WP:NDASH), 2) alphabetical ordering of states, and 3) the use of noun forms for the states rather than adjectives (e.g. Greece not Greco or Greek). Tassedethe (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the last 3 already conform to WP:NDASH ('all disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items'), and some of the others need spaces. Otherwise I agree with the alphabetical idea, and also with the en-dash (as the associated article is thus named, if it has survived various afds on these). Occuli (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, now you've pointed that out it seems that pretty much all the United States and United Kingdom (and more) categories are incorrectly spaced. Tassedethe (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it may just be best to speedy close this as make all correct, since there isn't really anything to debate. (Though this doesn't seem to be covered under the "Speedy criteria" section on the CfD page, just do it per IAR and SNOW.) They should all be changed to en dashes – spaced as necessary – per our dash guideline, and the alphabetical order seems to be established precedent. I would close it myself, but I don't know how we go about getting the bots to move things. ÷seresin 16:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There has long been an exemption from using those confusing dashes in some names, the first for images and the second for categories. Renaming to remove a character that is on the keyboard to be replaced by one that is not is generally not going to be approved. The changes need a full discussion and are clearly not allowed by any logic of the speedy criteria. Clearly there is something to debate. There is a reason that some types of renames are not included under the speedy criteria. Yes there is a difference between '- –' that many editors will miss unless they are right next to each other. Why do we need to make category names harder to enter? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think we should completely dispose of standard typographical practice because some people don't know how to type en dashes? And you'll have to direct me to where this exemption from WP:MOSDASH for categories is written. ÷seresin 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's a choice between adhering to some arbitrary rule about using a character that the average person can't discern with the naked eye and making it easier for people to navigate categories through the search box, I'll go for ease of use every time. Otto4711 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my computer at least (using Firefox, on a Mac) en dashes, while clearly discernible in the editing pane, appear identical to hyphens when typed in the search window. Don't know why that is, but it's a tricky one that can't be blamed solely on 'some people' being careless or ignorant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, ÷seresin's comment is a little ironic, in light of his user page which states: "I was initially named Alcemáe. But the acute made it difficult to type, as for some reason I can't use Alt codes on my laptop." Boy, some people. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of non-standard keyboard characters in category names as a barrier to navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per regulars and ample precedent. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of em-dashes, but support alphabetisation of country pairs. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of special dashes in category titles as an impediment to searching. Also oppose alphabetisation of country pairs at this time in order to preserve consistency with article titles (e.g. Greco-Bulgarian relations). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' - Too many problems could come when renamed for very little gain. Garion96 (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – editors seem perfectly happy to leave say Category:FK Blāzma Rēzekne players (cfd 4 Sept 09) alone (although I personally have no idea how to create (or pronounce) an 'ā' other than by copying and pasting) yet seem intent upon the usual quibbling about en-dashes, which are easy to produce via the standard wikipedia 'insert' edit window. And there can be category redirects with the dashes, just as there are article redirects. (There are also eg Category:Gençlerbirliği OFTAŞ footballers and Category:ŁKS Łódź.) Occuli (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I do not perceive the two situations to be comparable. In the case of Category:FK Blāzma Rēzekne players, we are ensuring that the category title reflects the correct spelling spelling of an organization's name. In the case of Category:Bolivia–Peru relations, we are pursuing a minor grammar correction that I expect most users would not even notice unless they were looking for it. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Occuli, "ā" is no more or less difficult to produce than an en dash. Simply select Latin from the pull down menu. That said, I do agree that redirects are probably the way to go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, unless we broadly ban all non-standard characters from categories, which we haven't. I don't see a reason to single out en-dashes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It should match the title. But I think the entire rule is misguided in the MOS, I'm not happy with this either. The basic style convention should balance normal entry with proper display: an accent mark is part of correct spelling , and significant . An en dash instead of a hypen is a mere typographic convention. On my mac too, using standard fonts for Safari, the difference is invisible DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 9 September 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:Theatre redirects[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 19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Theatre redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category contains redirects to theatre-related articles. While categories that only contain redirects are allowed, they are normally used to categorize redirects by type of redirect, not by type of target article. The normal categorization scheme for redirects includes categories such as Redirects from abbreviation, Redirects from full names and Redirects from misspellings. Cases similar to this one are Category:Dance redirects, Category:Performing arts redirects, and Category:Arts redirects, all created by the same editor. All of these are currently at CfD (link). Others, such as Category:Artist redirects and Category:Opera redirects, have already been deleted. There is also a Category:Ballet redirects, but due to the enormous number of subcategories in that one I'm nominating this one first, to confirm consensus to delete this kind of categories. Jafeluv (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Another pointless category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom, although redirects can be categorized they don't need their own separate category.. any topic having to do with Theatre can be categorized under Category:Theatre, doesn't matter if it's a redirect. Just as {{Wikipedia category}} says, Redirects should be categorized by project status rather than content. For the sake of consistency I agree to delete all these types of categories and recategorize any redirects in them under their main topic. I posted a notice at WikiProject Redirect for more input regarding this. -- œ™ 18:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator (and didn't we have such a nomination two weeks ago?) Debresser (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Completely unnecessary. We don't usually do this and there's no need to start now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 9 September 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.

International rugby union footballers[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 Rename:
Per WP:CSD#C2. --Xdamrtalk 14:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:England International rugby union footballers to Category:England international rugby union footballers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need for capitalisation. Should presumably be set out like Category:England international footballers. Jevansen (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency, I also propose renaming:

  • Support renaming of the categories and any other similarly-named RU cats - no need for capitalisation of "international". The two Irish ones ought to be replaced by a single one and for consistency "Ireland..." would be better. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:25, 5 September 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:Communist Party of Russia members[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 Category:Communist Party of Russia members to Category:Communist Party of the Russian Federation members. --Xdamrtalk 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Communist Party of Russia members to Communist Party of the Russian Federation members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the official name of the party - Communist Party of the Russian Federation. There are many different communist parties in Russia with similar names (any one could be called a Russian Communist Party or Communist Party of Russia, although this is usually applied to the CPRF), and the Communist Party of Russia was also one of the historical names for the Soviet Bolsheviks during the 1920s. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:00, 5 September 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:Godspeed You Black Emperor albums[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 Category:Godspeed You Black Emperor albums to Category:Godspeed You! Black Emperor albums. --Xdamrtalk 18:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Godspeed You Black Emperor albums to Category:Godspeed You! Black Emperor albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article Godspeed You! Black Emperor. Tassedethe (talk) 07:51, 5 September 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:Eloise television specials[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete. WP:CSD#G5 - creation of banned user in violation of ban. --Xdamrtalk 14:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Eloise television specials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category made by banned user MascotGuy in evasion of community ban. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:31, 5 September 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.

Swedes to Swedish[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 per nom. --Xdamrtalk 18:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is one in a series of similar proposals. Propose changing "Swedes" to "Swedish people" in order to conform with the parents Category:Swedish people and Category:Swedish people by ethnic or national origin. Not all nationalities have an appropriate "noun-form" that can be used, so using "Fooian people" is able to bring cross-category and cross-nationality consistency in these categories. I realise "Swedes" is shorter than "Swedish people", but in my opinion this benefit is outweighed by the greater benefit brought by inter-category constistencies. (Also note that Swede is ambiguous and often refers to rutabagas, as well as people from Sweden.) See previous discussion for more information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and previous precedent of Poles. Occuli (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, agree with nom, makes sense. Consistency is good. -- œ™ 18:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The correct English noun for a person of Swedish nationality (or descent) is a Swede. The addition of Person/People is redundant and should be deleted. It is the parents which should be renamed to conform to the majority. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not redundant if we change "Swede" to "Swedish". "Swedish" is an adjective; "people" a noun. No redundancy. Or do you mean it unnecessarily uses two words instead of one? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per precedents. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominators explaination. --Judo112 (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per many precedents. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 9 September 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:Lists of films by technical issue[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 Category:Lists of films by technical issue to Category:Lists of films by technology. --Xdamrtalk 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of films by technical issue to Category:Lists of films by technology
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent category Category:Films by technology. My issue is with the use of the word "issue." It makes it sound, to me anyway, as if it's a list of films with technical problems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent category and to more clearly describe its content. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 7 September 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:Bisexual models[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. --Xdamrtalk 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bisexual models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Category:LGBT models already covers this.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:31, 5 September 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:George and Victoria Cross Recipients[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all iot bring Victoria and George Cross recipient's categories into line with existing naming convention - Recipients of XXX. --Xdamrtalk 01:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Makes much more sense per English syntax. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nominators rationale seems sound, even though it seems like a lot of effort without much return (and my watchlist is going to be hell ;) Woody (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it! Once I'd finished nominating the GC categories (all 10 of them), I thought I might as well do the VC for good measure. Little did I realise the immense web in which I was entangling myself, and of course once you start, you can't really stop. Those are a couple of hours I'm never going to get back, weep... --Xdamrtalk 11:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per UK-Eng syntax, and to acknowledge the diligent efforts of the nom and the lost 2 hours. Occuli (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom & Occuli. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Somewhat indifferent. - Agree with Woody. (However, perhaps having my watchlist going to hell would be a good thing?) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no problems with the change. However, the "Battle of Gallipoli" categories really should be renamed as "Gallipoli Campaign", due to the latter being the correct naming. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that, makes sense. Nomination amended accordingly. Incidentally I'm fairly ambivalent about the Somme/Gallipoli categorisations, no objection to merging them if consensus demands. --Xdamrtalk 23:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename most but upmerge some - I don't see what's wrong with "Foo medal recipients" as it's shorter but I can't bring myself to care that much, so go ahead and rename most of these, but those which are categorizing at the specific battle level strike me as splitting things too fine. Otto4711 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Equalizes the categories and makes more sense in English. Hekerui (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Reads much better and more consistently with other cats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 9 September 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:Cannara[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 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article (Cannara itself) for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. Is it really necessary by now ? It sounds like redundant. Now only one article, so it is completely useless --95.233.86.129 (talk) 00:46, 5 September 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:Bettona[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 19:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article (Bettona itself) for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. Is it really necessary by now ? It sounds like redundant By now is one-voiced, so it is completely useless. --95.233.86.129 (talk) 00:46, 5 September 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:Bastia Umbra[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 19:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article (Bastia itself) for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. Is it really necessary by now ? It sounds like redundant. Now only one article, so it is completely useless --95.233.86.129 (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All linked by infobox at main article, which will do. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 5 September 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:Castel Ritaldi[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 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article (Castel Ritaldi itself) for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. Is it really necessary by now ? It sounds like redundant. Now only one article, so it is completely useless --95.233.86.199 (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All linked by infobox at main article, which will do. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 5 September 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:Campello sul Clitunno[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 19:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article (Campello itself) for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. Completely useless. --95.234.24.27 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All linked by infobox at main article, which will do Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 12 September 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:Cascia[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 19:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article (Cascia itself) for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. Completely useless. --95.234.24.27 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All linked by infobox at main article, which will do Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 12 September 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:Bevagna[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 19:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 articles for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. Is it really necessary by now ? It sounds like redundant. --95.234.24.27 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per comments at "Trevi" below. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 12 September 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:Castiglione del Lago[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 19:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. Completely useless. --95.233.86.199 (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All linked by infobox at main article, which will do Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 12 September 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:Trevi[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 19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would include also Trevi in this discussion. The village has got 8,000 inhabitants and its category a total of 7 articles. It is a Low importance-rated article so, also for it the category could be redundant. --95.234.22.189 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note : It seems that the author of this categories, Francesco Betti Sorbelli, is creating alphabetically a category for each commune of the Province of Perugia (total : 59), due to his creations of articles reguaring its frazioni. Some categories, as for exemple Category:Cascia have got a strong reason to exist (16 articles), but 59 categories for each village are too much (eg: the Category:Cannara has got only 2 voices: Cannara and a frazione). Is the project reguarding categories for Italian municipalities so developped ? Mainly i've see that there are categories for cities and towns, mostly provincial seats. Avoiding misunderstandings, the works of Francesbo Betti Sorbelli creating articles are good; but the categories, simply created for 1, 2 or 3 voices of frazione, are redundant. Also on itwiki, the municipalities with categories in PG are simply nine (the most famous or important and only Perugia, Foligno and Assisi exist both on it and en). This project to create a category for an Italian municipality (also a low-important rated one) when it has only one related article could open the road to create, potentially, 8,101 categories. Reguarding the province of Perugia itself and its 59 municipalities, i've never found a county of USA or a shire of UK with all its municipalities with their own category. Well for the cities of Perugia, Foligno, Assisi; good for the populated cats of Cascia and Trevi; useful (but i'm not so sure) for Campello and Bevagna but all 59 are, by now, redundant. In a future, with the continuous development of enwiki, it could be normal... but now IMHO not. In a next future i could only suppose that the categories who could be created will reguard other important towns of this province as for exemple Spoleto, Gubbio, Città di Castello... Good work :-) --95.233.86.129 (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete of course. I have asked him to stop doing this. Even more annoyingly, he does not mention and link the frazioni at the main comune article, except in the infobox! Let's do a group nom for these before the fire spreads. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In England, we normally only have categories for larger towns, not for every village, but it depends on the number of articles. Some county (shire) categories are being divided by local government district, but only rarely by civil parish or village. If there are only a few articles relating to one place, a navbox does the job better than a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep Category:Bevagna and Category:Trevi. They seem to be useful: the articles included are not entirely restricted to those on the so-called frazioni, and at least some of those on the frazioni are more developed than simple stubs deriving from census data. Ian Spackman (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced - he can't be bothered to mention any of these links in his miniscule stubs, so just sets up a category & lumps them in there. This is not to be encouraged. But if someone could spend a few minutes mentioning & linking these other things, that would be helpful - now done for both these. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 12 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_5&oldid=1211679683"