Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 10 June 12 >

June 11[edit]

Category:Lists of songs with special titles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Lists of songs with special titles into Category:Lists of songs
Category:Lists of songs with special titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Lists of songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Merge - this is a small category and, given that its contents have been decimated at AFD recently and the deletions are ongoing, seems unlikely to be getting any larger any time soon. The name is somewhat POV in that it's a matter of opinion as to what constitutes a "special" title. Just doesn't seem necessary to split off these sorts of song lists from the parent cat. Otto4711 21:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. But maybe we should wait for AfD to shut off its chainsaw and sit down for a nice cold one, and then have a look at what's left. --7Kim 03:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - without having investigated what is in the category, I would suggest that a song that is "special" accordng to one POV, will not be according to another person's POV. There can be no objective criterion for deciding what should be included. Peterkingiron 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Pokémon species by gender[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a group of creatures that it's trivial to characterize by gender. Type matters; Pokémon are more vulnerable to attacks by type. Generation matters; Pokémon can only evolve from certain generations. Even ownership matters; certain characters are identified with certain creatures. But gender never matters; there aren't special attacks or affinities based on the sex of the critter. In only a few cases is it even clear (Nidoran♂, for example) what gender a Pokémon is. I say delete all.--Mike Selinker 20:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shudder...I mean, delete all - per the excellent reasoning of the nominator and as overcategorization by sex/gender. Otto4711 21:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick correction I hate to admit that I even know this, but there are actually one or two special abilities that are based on gender. For example, if I remember right, in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Shinx has the special ability that he does extra damage versus creatures that are the same gender as him or herself. Not that this effects the category debate, but I just wanted to point out the technical correction to what the nominator said. Dugwiki 15:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand corrected; Attract does seem to be based on gender. Nonetheless, one or two special abilities doesn't make the scheme worthwhile.--Mike Selinker 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above for overcategorization by gender. Doczilla 08:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Pokemon who only exhibit one gender are notable for having that gender. There isn't a problem with it at all. Additionally, Pokemon can only become those others when they have that gender, and show stark differences. For example, a Burmy that's male evolves into a Mothim, but a Burmy that's female evolves into a Wormadam. Kirlias can evolve into Gardevoir or Gallade, but can only evolve into Gallade if the Kirlia is male. The gender differences are very important, I'd prefer they stay.Toastypk 06:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gross overcategorization of a trivial characteristic of some mostly-obscure cartoon characters perpetrated by an overzealous Wikiproject which seem to think this is Poképedia. Xtifr tälk 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles to be trimmed[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Articles to be trimmed
Category:Articles to be trimmed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as POV and unnecessary; this category was part of a scheme to try to categorize articles that an editor thinks are "to be trimmed" which basically means that they are "too long", a POV based categorization: this one categorizes those with sections that are "too long", another Category:Articles that are too long - deleted following this debate - categorized those that were "too long" in total; note: the subcategory Category:Pages over 100K has also been nominated for deletion. Carlossuarez46 20:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons the 100K cat and the "too long" cat were or should be deleted. "To be trimmed" is a completely subjective assessment. Otto4711 13:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective, non-specific category. Any inclusion criteria would be arbritrary and not consistently appropriate for all topics and articles. Doczilla 08:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lutheran saints[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename per amended proposal, to Category:People celebrated in the Lutheran liturgical calendar. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Lutheran saints to Category:People celebrated in the Lutheran Calendar of Saints
Category:Lutheran saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:People celebrated in the Lutheran Calendar of Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename, The category name is profoundly misleading and this fact is stated on the page: there are no Lutheran saints. From the category page: "The Lutheran church does not officially recognize saints. However, it does have a liturgical calendar which commemorates some specific individuals whom it believes to have been particularly devoted to spreading the Lutheran faith. The individuals listed below are all included on at least one Lutheran liturgical calendar." Clavecin 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lutheran primates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Lutheran primates
Category:Lutheran primates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - This category does little for organizing material in Category:Lutheran bishops. It looks like the other subcategories in Category:Lutheran bishops are sufficient. All of the subcategories in Category:Lutheran primates are already integrated into Category:Lutheran bishops, so no merging is necessary. Also, as repeatedly stated, having parallel category trees for bishops and primates can be very confusing. It would therefore be appropriate to delete this category. Dr. Submillimeter 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless the intention is that all Primate cats ultimately be deleted, having this cat is quite useful in conjunction with Primate cats of other Christian bodies (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) Pastorwayne 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bishops and primates are not the same thing. These seem valid categories, which is not to say (see next nom) that special "primate" national sub-cats are always needed. when the holder of one episcopy is ex officio Primate (as with Canterbury for the Anglicans etc). Johnbod 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and replace with an article. Lutheran churches do not have a consistent approach to the notion of primacy, and it is wrong to categorise Category:Praeces of the Church of Norway as primates. Using the term "primate" in this context is too simplistic for a diverse tradition such as Lutheranism (the Category:Praeces of the Church of Norway is probably better considered as a moderator, like his Presbyterian equivalents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge in general to Category:Primates and then decide, article by article, whether it is appropriate. The First Bishop of Wilhelmine Germany was the Kaiser himself; do we want him in these cats? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It is useful to have a category for the heads of the Lutheran church in each country, even if their structures differ. Historically, at least, there have been many bishoprics in Germany, and several in Sweden. If you do not like the word "primates" perhaps "heads of Lutheran churches". The category is certainly needed under some name. Peterkingiron 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lutheran Primates of Finland[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Lutheran Primates of Finland to Category:Archbishops and bishops of Turku
Category:Lutheran Primates of Finland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Archbishops and bishops of Turku (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The title "archbishop" or "bishop" is used more frequently than "primate" for these people. See the articles themselves or the article Archbishop of Turku. As currently named, this primate category causes confusion. Using alternate names like this in general is very misleading. Dr. Submillimeter 18:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Primate is always this Archbishop. Johnbod 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, to the more widely-used title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Lutheran Primates of Finland" is not identical to "Archbishop of Turku". One could be (before the reformation) Archbishop of Turku without being the Lutheran Primate of Finland (which office did not exist. I would support having Lutheran Primates as a subset of a broader Archbishops and Bishops category. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That does npot appear to be correct, because you appear to be confusing the older title "Bishop of Turku" with the nineteenty-century title "Archbishop of Turku". From the article Archdiocese of Turku: "In 1817 the Bishop was created Archbishop and became head of the Church in Finland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The "archbishops and bishops" category could be separated into Lutheran and Catholic subdivisions if necessary. Nonetheless, the phrase "Primates of Finland" should still be changed to "Archbishops and bishops of Turku", regardless of whether the category uses the phrase "Lutheran". All of the people in this category were typically identified as archbishop or bishop, not primate. Dr. Submillimeter 10:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates of Eastern Christianity[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Primates of Eastern Christianity into Category:Primates (religion)
Category:Primates of Eastern Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Primates (religion) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Merge - Except for this category, categories on Christianity are not divided into Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity subcategories. I therefore suggest upmerging Category:Primates of Eastern Christianity into Category:Primates (religion). Dr. Submillimeter 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yet there are articles for Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. It seems helpful to distinguish cats similarly. Pastorwayne 21:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom is I think mistaken; there is no division between East and West here. The sub-cats of Cat:Primates are: Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran & Eastern. It seems a natural categorization to me. Johnbod 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as nom. Johnbod's subdivision is, in practice, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran & Other. We don't do Other; that's what uncategorized articles are for. This cat includes both the Eastern Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, who are much further from each other than the Anglicans and the Lutherans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom, TewfikTalk 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure all "Primate" categories - Dr. Submillimeter has done good work in simplifying the titles, but some of the categorisation of categories is unsatisfactory. I would suggest that the "Primates" category should cover the main western denominations of Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran etc. together with Coptic, Eastern Orthodox (limited to primates who - or whose predecessors - were in communion with Constantinople. However churches such as Assyrian, Syriac, etc, with separated in the 5th or 6th centuries should be listed in the main "Primates" category. There will then need to be "Other Orthodox Primates" and "Other Catholic Primates" categories for churches not in communion with Constaninople or Rome respectively. These will cover Old Catholics, CAtholic Primates not in communion with Rome; Old Believers, "walled off" Orthodox etc. These categories will need a brief text describing their scope and identifiying the main article on the church. Greek Catholics, Maronites, etc. who are in communion with Rome should be listed as Roman Catholic. Despite what I said in another discussion, I am unhappy with the term "sectaries" which is a term of abuse by those who think of themselves as mainstream. The objective should be to identify the heads of the major communions (that have bishops) in the *Primates" category, and then have these divided into regional categories at the next level down. Peterkingiron 23:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, separate subcategories to the main "Primates" category may be required for the Armenian and Georgian churches, but I suspect that the separation of the Ethopic church from the Coptic is as much political as doctrinal. I think that Episcopal Methodists, and Continuing Anglicans (and perhaps a few more) may need to appear as a further "other" category, possibly "heads of other episcopal denominations". If the word "other" is unacceptable, how about "miscellaneous" or "various". Peterkingiron 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The words "other", "miscellaneous", and "various" would be unacceptable. In particular, the words do not have an appropriate global view. People from those specific religions would probably be irritated to be referred to as "other", "miscellaneous", and "various". A Protestant subdivision, however, would be appropriate (if we even want to keep the primate category tree, since it looks redundant with Category:Bishops). Dr. Submillimeter 10:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ho about "Primates of smaller Orthodox Churches". My objective is to avoid the main categories being over-cluttered with minor groups. Alternatively "minor" or "lesser", but they may indicate a value judgment as to their worth. Like you I would like (I think) to see the structure simplified, but reflecting the major confessional divisions of Christianity. Peterkingiron 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "Smaller" is also going to run into problems. Wikipedia:Overcategorization generally recommends against using subjective words because of various problems that this has caused in the past. Why not start with Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic subdivisions and then have smaller denominational divisions within those categories? Dr. Submillimeter 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pride & Prejudice[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Pride & Prejudice
Category:Pride & Prejudice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and merge. An indiscriminate list of articles having anything to do with Pride & Prejudice, including adaptations, characters, places, and literary movements. Perhaps creation of Category:Adaptations of Pride & Prejudice and similar categories would be more useful. María (habla conmigo) 18:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I didn't actually create the category-- someone else had put the category "Pride & Prejudice" on one lone article; I just gave it a page and added more articles to the category. I was surprised by how much media there was, related to Pride and Prejudice; I do think that it should have a category, but you're right in suggesting that it may need to be more specific. I like "Adaptations of Pride and Prejudice," but it would be nice to have something that could include everything related to the novel, just because it is so very large in the world of classic literature. Elbeonore 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this material is or should be categorized in the existing extensive category system housed under Category:Jane Austen. We already have categories for film adaptations, TV adaptations, a general adaptations category and one for characters. Frankly that whole structure is a bit of a rat's nest already and this categroy unnecessarily complicates it even further. Otto4711 19:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NRHP theme - religious[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:NRHP theme - religious to Category:Registered Historic Places of religious function
Category:NRHP theme - religious (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Registered Historic Places of religious function (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category as named violates WP:NCCAT where it says, "Don't hard-code the category structure into names". In addition, the word "theme" has been identified as confusing to the actual purpose of the category. See also prior discussions at: (a) the NRHP WikiProject and (b) the deletion discussion in the CFD archive. Ipoellet 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming as proposed. The National Register database calls these classifications "functions", not "themes". In case we ever decide to create other categories based on functions, the other functions are:
    • Domestic
    • Commerce/trade
    • Social
    • Government
    • Education
    • Funerary
    • Recreation/culture
    • Agriculture/subsistence
    • Industry/processing/extraction
    • Health care
    • Defense
    • Landscape
    • Transportation
Note that a given property may have multiple functions, so there might be multiple categories. I don't think we need to create categories for all of these right now, though. If we do, we can create category names such as Category:Registered Historic Places of educational function. (Or should it be capitalized?) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest better rename needed - current name is unsatisfactory, I agree. However, this category is meant for various buildings designated in an American heritage scheme, yet it doesn't make its national affiliation clear (and doesn't even use the full title of the scheme, which would be a good idea IMHO) and so it risks causing confusion and non-American buildings/places being added. Thinks off the top of his head - how about Category:Religious locations on the American National Register of Historic Places? A bit clunky, I know, but presumably "buildings" isn't wide enough and I was trying to avoid "places" twice. Bencherlite 23:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "Registered Historic Places" formulation is used in a large number of NRHP-related categories - it may not be ideal, but at least it's consistent. That said, the generic sound of that formulation has bothered me, too, for the reasons you cite. There are arguments to be made on both sides. However, if we're going to spell out "National Register of Historic Places", then adding "American" is just redundant - the NRHP is a very specific program and its proper name is equally specifically associated with the United States. -Ipoellet 05:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Emergent philosophy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was I almost kept this simply because of the phrase "glittering blue thunder", but alas, consensus says delete --Kbdank71 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Emergent philosophy
Category:Emergent philosophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category seems to be a random grab-bag of newish schools of philosophy (ie New Philosophers) and several new-age type pseudophilosophies with no real relation between items, no inclusion criteria. Note a corresponding article was deleted here.   ⇒ bsnowball  16:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep. When you talk about emergent, "newish" is by definition part of the territory. And any set of emergent philosophies is going to contain some duds -- these are philosophies which, by virtue of their newness, haven't undergone the long evolutionary shakeout that decides what persists and what meets extinction. That shakeout takes years in the case of philosophies that are pure balderdash; philosophies that have only a bit of merit can take decades to fade out. And the relation between items in the category is precisely that -- that they are new. That's all they share and that's all they have to share.
By the by, I have no idea what in glittering blue thunder a pseudophilosophy is. If you have an objection to an article, take it to the article, not the category. And if you have an objection to the philosophies described in the articles, take it off Wikipedia entirely; we're not concerned with the merits of the philosophies involved, we're concerned with whether the articles are notable, accurate, and cite verifiable sources.
I have no objection to the category, though I would entertain a rename to something that isn't quite as fraught with ambiguity (emergence can have several meanings; the sense of "newly coming into view", as in emergent viruses, applies, but the philosophical sense is questionable): Category:Recently formulated philosophies would work. A category of philosophical movements of recent vintage is extremely useful to Wikipedians interested in philosophy. The articles themselves will live and die by their own merits -- if they are good well-sourced articles they will survive (and be worth keeping and categorising) and if not ... oh well.
I will agree with you that the category does need some good inclusion criteria -- but that is not justification for category deletion; how much of the Wikipedia category system would survive if it were? --7Kim 21:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The word "recently" in 7Kim's suggested rename is still very vague, and still subject to the charge of being just "newish". If you're going to pursue a rename, you'll want to home in on what "recent" is. Maybe something like Category:Philosophies formulated since 1990, or whatever other point in time is relevant. Ipoellet 06:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand this concern; however, the nature of the beast defies a simple knife-edge dividing line. The best definition of an emergent philosophy would probably be centred on what I mentioned above -- the period of shakeout and evolution that all new ideologies pass through in the time between their initial exposure to the world and their establishment as lasting belief-systems. In the real world, the beginning of that time is initial public exposition; for Wikipedia purposes, appearance on the notability horizon. Just when a philosophy might pass from being "emergent" to being "established", though, is a less easy idea; establishment is consensus-derived, not definition-derived, and occurs gradually over an extended period of time rather than as a discrete event. There was a time when Objectivism was clearly an emergent philosophy, and there was also a later time when it became an established philosophy; but trying to nail down just when it stopped being one and started being the other is like trying to work out exactly when one begins to have a beard, or the exact difference between man and woman -- the distinction is obvious on a large scale, but to apply any sort of hard-and-fast rule based on small-scale measurement (average projection of strands above the skin, or karyotype) to that large-scale reality confuses the issue rather than clarifying it. --7Kim 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We don't have cats where it's not clear what belongs. The crippling vaugeness of this cat can be seen by the examples now in it: The Georgian Traditionalist School; General semantics from the 1930's; the New Philosophers from the 1970's. Are these still "emerging"? Or are they dead on the vine? How can we tell? And what do they have in common? Why would a reader of one be interested in the others? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, far too vague and extremely subjective, and I see no reason to classify philosophies by age or level of acceptance in any case. Xtifr tälk 12:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong delete 'fad-word' philosophy is not a category, it is a fiction trying to establish a truth.--Buridan 12:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion into Category:Anglican primates
Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Anglican primates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Merge - At the moment, Category:Anglican primates only contains Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion. I see no reason for the extra layer of categorization, so I recommend merging everything into Category:Anglican primates. Dr. Submillimeter 15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Anglican primates is shorter, and it will survive any possible schism in the Anglican Communion (although this may possibly be the point; there are Anglicans not in communion with Canterbury.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. The mention of schism suggests a possible reason why the categories were originally layered as they were. But there's no present purpose in the layered categories if no non-Communion articles have been identified. Ipoellet 16:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • by all means, upmerge Pastorwayne 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - surely they are several articles, re the Continuing Anglican Movement and others, left disconnected by earlier debates here? It's too late for me to check the recent debates tonight. Johnbod 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom, as it is shorter. However, is the present list not incomplete? Anglican Communion Primates' Meeting says there are 38 primates, which is far more than listed. The category thus also needs to be populated with another 20. Peterkingiron 23:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. If a significant number of entries requiring this are produced then it can always be recreated. TewfikTalk 06:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think so - plus this is one of 3 non-Anglican Communion "presiding bishops" cats in Category:American Anglican bishops. I'm sure a relevant category was zapped in the last few weeks, but can't see it under Ang or Pri in the May index. If anyone can remember through the blur of primates..... Johnbod 18:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In light of roundhouse0's comments, maybe a reverese merge would be appropriate? Dr. Submillimeter 07:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Presiding Bishops of the United Episcopal Church of North America ,
Category:Primates of the Traditional Anglican Communion (one article - category unneccessary),
Category:Presiding Bishops of the Church of England (Continuing),
Category:Presiding Bishops of the Reformed Episcopal Church - one article - category unneccessary),
Category:Primuses of the Free Church of England also 1 article,
Category:Presiding Bishops of the Anglican Orthodox Church 1 article,

- I think that's the lot. Most of these categories should be deleted and the contents put in Category:Anglican primates, which would justify the existence of the category under discussion here, Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion. Johnbod 11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have revised my recommendation following the location of the lost subcategories. I think placing these categories within Category:Anglican primates would be appropriate, although I would recommend against deleting the categories, as grouping people from multiple denominations together would be messy. Dr. Submillimeter 12:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Dr S re retention of subcats - I expect other members can be found and they have 'potential for growth'. -- roundhouse0 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm easy about that - it saves more nominations certainly :) Is this nom to be regarded as withdrawn? If so, I will do the neccessary reorganising. Johnbod 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It technically is not withdrawn because the proposal received support from other people. However, the closing administrator could use his or her discretion to keep the category. Dr. Submillimeter 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates of the North American Old Catholic Church[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the North American Old Catholic Church to Category:Presiding Archbishops of the North American Old Catholic Church
Category:Primates of the North American Old Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Presiding Archbishops of the North American Old Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The North American Old Roman Catholic Church website uses the term "Presiding Archbishop" to identify their leaders. This category should be renamed appropriately. Dr. Submillimeter 15:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod 00:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English county towns[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:English county towns to Category:County towns in England
Category:English county towns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:County towns in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to convention "in" form for categories of settlements. Casperonline 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Weak support "County towns in England" sounds unnatural, "County towns of England" would be closer to English as she is spoke. But I do accept the need for some consistency. DuncanHill 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:EastEnders people[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:EastEnders people
Category:EastEnders people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper person by project overcategorization, per strong precedent. Otto4711 13:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

"Notable" category"[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename first to Category:Individual rooms/rename second as nominated --Kbdank71 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge and rename "notable" is POV words. Wol8 13:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as per. And, of course, they have to be notable to be on Wikipedia in the first place. Lugnuts 18:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my concern about renaming the sports spectators one is that it opens up the category to misuse and abuse. While normally we don't use words like "notable" or "famous" in category names in this instance it's important that the category is clear that it is for people who are notable for their spectating and not open to anyone who has a Wikipedia article and also watches sports. Otto4711 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename per nom; "notable" has to be implied or it ought to be added to every category. Carlossuarez46 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both, noting that these are too different for it to be appropriate to group them. Category:Notable rooms has a clear enough and legitimate intention, which can be catered for by renaming it Category:Individual rooms. Category:Notable sports spectators is problematic, but Category:Sports spectators is much, much worse, as merely spectating at sports does not make people notable, and hordes of people who are notable for other reasons also spectate at sports. So keep unless anyone can come up with a better name. At the moment the category is not being misused, but if it is renamed to Category:Sports spectators it surely will be. Sumahoy 00:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Wikipedia:Categorization of people already covers the Sports spectators case, in the General considerations section: For example, a film actor that holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. So, if someone is notable for being a sports spectator (Jack Nicholson, etc), they are categorized as such. We don't need adjectives in the category name to maintain the current policy. Neier 04:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both per Sumahoy. Haddiscoe 12:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename per nom and per Neier. We don't use words like "notable" or "famous" in cat names for good reasons. And "people might add inappropriate members" is something that should be fixed by editing, not bad naming. Especially since bad naming is unlikely to fix the problem ("he's notable and he spectates, so I put him under 'notable spectators'"). For the room category, would also endorse a rename to something else, as suggested by Sumahoy. Xtifr tälk 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename to Category:Individual rooms per Sumahoy, as it is perfectly obvious that that is what the category is being used for, and that is a distinct function from Category:Rooms, where these articles would get lost. Casperonline 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge: Rename one to Category:Individual rooms, per Sumahoy & Casper. Leave the Spectators as they are. Johnbod 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename first to Category:Individual rooms in the absence of any better name as the contents of the category would be better kept together rather than being lost in Category:Rooms. Rename second to Category:Sports spectators to get rid of inappropriate "notable" in category name, thereafter fix inappropriate additions with appropriate changes per Xtifr. Bencherlite 13:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:3rd Rock from the Sun[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:3rd Rock from the Sun
Category:3rd Rock from the Sun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - recreation of category deleted May 6. Speedy denied, claiming "substantially different use" which isn't true. As with close to a hundred similar categories deleted over the last several weeks, this category is not required for the material it contains. The articles are interlinked and the sub-cats are in their appropriate separate category structures. Otto4711 12:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'm allowed to vote on this, having created the category, but I want to point out that this new version does differ from the original. The original was deleleted because "other than the show's article, everything in the category [was] an improperly categorized cast/crew article." There are no cast/crew articles in the new version, making it a substantially different case. While the "3rd Rock from the Sun characters" category did exist at that time, the newly-created "3rd Rock from the Sun episodes" did not. Hegria66 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What Otto is saying is that you don't need a parent category named after a show solely to house characters and episodes subcategory. Both characters and episodes are handled by their own categorization schemes, and a reader also can view indexes of links to articles about the characters and episodes by visiting the main article for the show. The general rule of thumb is that if a reader can visit the main article for a television series and easily navigate from there to everything related to the show then you don't also need a separate category that serves the same navigational function. Dugwiki 16:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (whether speedy or not) per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 08:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and salt, TewfikTalk 06:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Luxembourg culture[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Luxembourg culture
Category:Luxembourg culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created in error. Existing category Category:Luxembourgian culture already exists and covers same category area. Rgds, Trident13 08:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Luxembourg is a better adjective here than Luxembourgian; if we decide to keep the existing one, make this a category redirect, or it will happen again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per Septentrionalis above. Ipoellet 17:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forward merge per nom. It has been agreed in the past that Wikipedia will use Luxembourgian, so we should stick with it unless someone can come up with a more compelling argument for change than "Luxembourg is better". Sumahoy 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article Luxembourg is silent on the attributive adjective, but the demonym is "Luxembourger" and the name of the language is "Luxembourgish". None of the three official languages of Luxembourg would build "Luxembourgian", or use "Luxembourg" as an adjective, except as a joke (probably at the expense of English-speakers). French uses Luxembourgeois in all three roles; German uses Luxemburger as the demonym, Luxemburgisch for the language, and either one for the adjective, depending on context; and Luxembourgish itself (Lëtzebuergesch) seems to follow the German model with changes in spelling and pronunciation. The article Culture of Luxembourg took the right tack and avoided the issue of the attributive adjective nicely, perhaps we can merge, forward or backward, and then rename? --7Kim 03:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, incidentally, "Luxembourg" is British spelling; "Luxemburg" is also proper. --7Kim 03:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly is the relevance of usage in other languages? This is the English Wikipedia. Casperonline 22:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there is documented consensus in English usage (outside of Wikipedia) for "Luxembourgian", there is none and the Wikipedia convention is correct.
      • If there is documented consensus in English usage for an attributive adjective other than "Luxembourgian" (I am told that the OED gives "Luxembourg" as an adjective, but I don't know the truth of it), then there may be little relevance to the comment (other than showing that the construction "Luxembourgian" is almost certainly not of Luxemburgish provenance), but still the Wikipedia convention must be revisited.
      • If there is no documented consensus in English usage, however -- that is, if "Luxembourgian" is effectively a Wikipedia-specific coinage and no consensus outside Wikipedia exists -- then the local-language usage should prevail, and showing that local language offers the options of Luxembourgeois or Luxembourgish (an accepted assimilation of Lëtzenbuergesch or Luxemburgisch) does become relevant.
Thou shalt make unto thee no graven images. Wikipedia is a human creation and like all human creations it is fallible. If whoever created the first two categories on Luxembourg scrambled for an adjective and got it wrong, and then somebody else made a category and followed his lead, then the erroneous usage became a convention and following it is a matter much more of being conventional than of being correct. Whether the initial decision to use "Luxembourgian" was correct or not rests on documentation of English usage external to Wikipedia. Wikipedia -- I repeat -- is not infallible.
And, still, I think Category:Culture of Luxembourg is probably the best way to go. It obviates the whole issue. --7Kim 22:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:East Jerusalem[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:East Jerusalem
Category:East Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Editors were unhappy with the ambiguity of the title, since the borders of the name "East Jerusalem" as it's used today are not clearly defined. Some objected to including ancient sites in a category for a 20 year municipality. There seems to be consensus now that the category should either be renamed to "Historic East Jerusalem" (I prefer something like "East Jerusalem 1948-67") or just deleted, since a list has been created to replace it. I myself am neutral on this issue think it should either be given a more precise name or deleted. (Discussion took place at Category talk:East Jerusalem) nadav (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think using Tewfik's 2 subcategories makes things precise. The first one (slightly edited by me), "Jerusalem locations in Jordanian municipality (1949-1967)," is the same as your "East Jerusalem 1948-67". --Timeshifter 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the nominator has said, the creation of this category has invited enormous POV-pushing as several editors have attempted to add many historical sites to the category that is supposed to cover a relatively brief period in the history of Jerusalem. Other category titles are unwieldy and any way it's unclear what articles are to be added there. Thus, deletion is the only viable option. Beit Or 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose East Jerusalem is the normal English-language term for that part of Jerusalem occupied by Jordan prior to 1967, and regarded by many governments nowadays as being Israeli-occupied territory. Have read the debate on the cat page and am astonished that the term could be described as 'Anti-Israeli'. It isn't, it's a recognition of disputed status and historical reality. DuncanHill 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not clear exactly whether the name "East Jerusalem" is supposed to include only sites within the municipal borders of the Jordanian city, or whether it also includes other Arab (or even Jewish?) parts of the reunified and expanded municipality. All sides agreed the current name ambiguous. Since a list has been created that explains this better, we can either delete this category or make its name clearer. I think it's nonconstructive to oppose both these options. nadav (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest clarification via subcategories. See my comment farther down. Keep the list, too. --Timeshifter 13:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the rationale laid out by Nadav1. A list exists, but a category isn't the right way to deal with a controversial and disputed political term with varying [and contradictory] definition, which is of course stated out-right in the Categorisation guideline 8: Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option. Listification is exactly what was agreed to on Category talk:East Jerusalem, and what was done prior to this nomination. TewfikTalk 04:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per Tewfik. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete Tewfik expresses it rather clearly and succinctly. -- Avi 12:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a wikipedia article titled East Jerusalem. So I don't understand why the category would be deleted. I suggest keeping the list page too, List of East Jerusalem locations. The notes can be expanded there as needed. That way we cover the issue from all sides. More info is better than less. The section headings from the list page can be used to create subcategories for Category:East Jerusalem. The subcategory names may need to be adjusted slightly to make them into better subcategory names. Subcategory names such as:
  • Jerusalem locations in Jordanian municipality (1949-1967).
  • Jerusalem locations in expanded Israeli municipality (1967-present).--Timeshifter 13:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support Timeshifter's proposals above, which to me seem to address the problems of nomenclature mentioned previously, while retaining a category which makes sense in everyday English-language usage. DuncanHill 14:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the overcategorization guideline page, and I see nothing that applies to Category:East Jerusalem or any of the possible subcategories. --Timeshifter 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. What's the point of keeping a container category that could only possibly contain two subcategories and nothing else? nadav (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can contain those 2 subcategories and more. Many categories consist mainly of subcategories. East Jerusalem is a common name, and will be what many people search for. When people click on the subcategories they need to be able to go up the chain to the appropriate overall category concerning East Jerusalem. --Timeshifter 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tewfik. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it has an unclear and shifting delineation, exactly the kind of topic that should be avoided for categories, which can't deal with nuance or opposing views. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tewfik was able to delineate the subcategories on his list page: List of East Jerusalem locations. So let us use those subcategories with Category:East Jerusalem.--Timeshifter 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Slimvirgin, who expresses it very well. --Leifern 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SV et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DuncanHill. --Ian Pitchford 19:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tewfik and SlimVirgin. It's time to get rid of categories where the criteria for inclusion are controversial and/or vague. There are enough opportunties for disputes on Wikipedia without such categories. 6SJ7 22:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but populate from articles in List of East Jerusalem locations. That list should be retained as it has seceral red links inducating articles that may be needed. The category may need a short introductory text defining the scope of the category, and referring the main article. Peterkingiron 23:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per duncan & T/S. comment surely common usage indicates a strong 'keep' regardless of alleged ambiguity (I must admit I fail to see the ambiguity). Delad 00:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tewfik and SlimVirgin. Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agee with Peterkingiron. The borders of East Jerusalem are ill defined as a result of the policies of post 67 municipalities which have built new Jewish neigbourhoods surrounding the East of the city. But the demarcation between East and West jerusalem is very real, and is more like two worlds than two cities. The arab areas in the east are virtual no go areas for many jews while arabs risk harrasment by the authorities whenever they need to go to the jewish areas in the west. Like many deletion debates this has degenerated into a sectarian headcount with the pro-Israel editors voting to delete the category, in line with official Israeli policy to erase the arab character of east jerusalem. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a personal attack to me. But I would like to invite the closing admin to review my contribution history and see whether Jay's description of me as an editor "who does little more than post political polemics" is the truth or a lie, and to draw the necessary conclusions regarding this deletion debate. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny coming from you, O great admin, Jayjg, ... whose edits are frequently mentioned unfavorably at WP:ANI and elsewhere. From Wikipedia:Canvassing: "Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." Abu ali has been editing in this area as was indicated in my comment. See also Abu ali's discussion of the relevant topics at Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics. Next .... --Timeshifter 06:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per duncan, TS, & Peterkingiron. --Peter cohen 22:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tewfik. The above comments by Abu Ali illustrates nicely the POV edit warring that will likely result if the category is kept. WaysAndMeans 16:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Abu Ali calling for edit warring. You are the first person to suggest edit warring in this discussion. If the subcategories in Tewfik's list made nearly everybody happy when used on the list page, then it is not reasonable to oppose those subcategories at Category:East Jerusalem. Tewfik has been reverting my addition of Category:Disputed territories and Category:Cities in the West Bank to Category:Jerusalem. See this diff with my explanation for returning them. I can live with Tewfik's removal of those categories from Category:Jerusalem if they can be put on Category:East Jerusalem. I can not do that if Category:East Jerusalem does not exist. --Timeshifter 16:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I went and inspected the Jerusalem article and it is as you rather than Tewfik described. Actually the Category:Cities in Israel tag is also disputable for those minded to be awkward as only part of the city is recognised internationally as being in Israel and my country (the UK) regars it as international city not part of any country. Personally, I think that more rather than fewer categories is better to acknowlege the multiple POVs rather than censor them.--Peter cohen 20:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, Tewfik. But asking for comments at Category talk:East Jerusalem is not canvassing. It is the most logical place to find editors with various opinions on this issue. --Timeshifter 21:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everyone admits category is murky, cat likely to become an edit-war magnet. IronDuke 19:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. We're quite capable of having an edit war whether the category in question is removed or not. See Category:Jerusalem where referecne to disputed status is being censored.--Peter cohen 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I don't believe that the existence of legitimate entries on which people may edit war should be taken as encouraging useless entries on which people will edit war. IronDuke 22:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply to IronDuke a useless entry? How is a category which uses the normal English-language name for a place 'useless' in an English-language wikipedia? Unless you are pushing the POV that there is no such place as East Jerusalem. DuncanHill 22:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply I take it you have not read the discussion above. If not, the answer to your question is there. IronDuke 22:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I and various other people are not convinced by the suggestion that it is a useless category. Being able to identify which parts of Jerusalem would be in the Palestinian part of the disputed city would be quite useful. And who is this "everyone" who has admitted that the category is murky? Or at least any more so than a lot of concepts in natural language. --Peter cohen 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would people edit war concerning entries in subcategories of Category:East Jerusalem? There has been nothing but praise for the 2 East Jerusalem subcategories suggested by Tewfik for his list. For more info please see this map of East Jerusalem: Image:EastJerusalemMap.svg. --Timeshifter 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tewfik never suggested any subcategories - he pointed out that there are four or more possible definitions, each of which would encompass or overlap a small group of entries with no potential for growth, and referred to the policy that states listification is the ideal in such a case (Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option). He also referred to the consensus which had been reached on Talk with Abnn. TewfikTalk 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • An agreement with one person at Category talk:East Jerusalem is not enough. And in fact, you, Tewfik wrote there: "I think creating a list or category for the Jordanian municipality would be a good idea." That is exactly what a subcategory does. And at the page you created, List of East Jerusalem locations, you created 2 subsections titled "Locations in Jordanian municipality (1949-1967)" and "Locations in expanded Israeli municipality (1967-present)". No one has expressed any problems with that breakdown. So it can be used to break down the category into subcategories, too. Why would people edit war over subcategories they agree with? --Timeshifter 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To IronDuke of course I have read the discussion above. I have been following it since it started. That is why I wrote what I did. DuncanHill 23:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Sorry, I'll try to make it clearer. Having a category whose very definition is disputed is a) not helpful and b) contrary to wiki standards. What are the borders of East Jerusalem? Can you define them? And will we replace the Jerusalem cat with East Jerusalem whenever, say, a holy site, landmark, etc., happens to be in a place that at least one definition of East Jerusalem encompasses? And if we do so, are we not implicitly endorsing the widest possible interpretation of East Jerusalem? When you write about East Jerusalem being a "Palestinian" part of the city, a matter of dispute among many, (including, I feel confident, the Jews who live there), you rather confirm my fears. IronDuke 23:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think things are less murky than people believe. For more info please see this map of East Jerusalem: Image:EastJerusalemMap.jpg.--Timeshifter 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, the map is implicitly defining East Jerusalem as "areas of the post 1967 Jerusalem municipality that are also in the West Bank". That's a bit long winded for a category name...Isn't it easier to just have "West Bank" and "Jerusalem" categories appear on all places that meet this criteria? nadav (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe "Post 1967 East Jerusalem" is good enough (I assume it will contain both Jewish and Arab areas?), but this doesn't have anything to do with this "East Jerusalem" category. I still don't think it's useful to have a container category whose sole purpose is to clump together two categories with good, precise names that happen to have the ambiguous phrase "East Jerusalem" in their title. nadav (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tewfik. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Precision isn't a bad thing. The category as defined along the lines proposed by Timeshifter, Duncan Hill, Peter Cohen among others makes it both useful and informative. Tiamut 04:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Another canvassed vote. TewfikTalk 07:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • From Wikipedia:Canvassing: "It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, and absolutely unacceptable if they have asked you to stop." Tiamut and I have had previous discussions concerning category naming. --Timeshifter 10:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tewfik, unless we can have access to your emails, how can any of us be sure that you haven't been canvassing votes? That was, In my opinion, rather a snidey thing to do.DuncanHill 09:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Nadav1, Tewfik, IronDuke. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tewfik, unless we can have access to your emails, how can any of us be sure that you haven't been canvassing votes? That was, In my opinion, rather a snidey thing to do.DuncanHill 09:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tewfik - who said anything about 'everybody doing it'? Please don't poison the wells by lying about what I have said. Keep it clean please. DuncanHill 18:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nadav. There is not and has never been a city with the name East Jerusalem, even at the time Jerusalem was separated. All is included within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem and treated as such. It can be included in Category:Jerusalem if necessary. --Shamir1 13:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Officially there is not and there has never been a city with the name East Berlin, but like "East Jerusalem" it is a common usage.--Peter cohen 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there is no Category:East Berlin, nor are there any attempts to create one. Beit Or 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • East Berlin no longer exists. It is just Berlin now. In the case of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem still exists. And the international community does not recognize the claims of the right wing of Israeli politics that there is just one Jerusalem. From Jerusalem: "The status of a 'united Jerusalem' as Israel's 'eternal capital' has not been officially recognized by most of the international community, and nearly all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv."--Timeshifter 19:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, I never said there should be no category for West Bank neighborhoods of Jerusalem. nadav (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete per Tewfik, SlimVirgin, and Beit Or. --212.117.152.157 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some people write "Listify and Delete," and cite Tewfik's use of guideline 8 at Wikipedia:Categorization# Some general guidelines. Actually guideline 8 means the complete opposite of what Tewfik is interpreting it to mean. The use of Tewfik's very specific and non-controversial subcategories means that "it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs" in those subcategories. So the subcategories of Tewfik's highly-praised list page, List of East Jerusalem locations, can be used as the uncontroversial subcategories of the category page. --Timeshifter 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If people agree they'd be useful, I see no reason not to create those categories independently of this one. nadav (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Container categories such as Category:East Jerusalem are navigational tools common to many wikipedia topics. When someone wants info on a topic they go to the top level category. Otherwise people have to take a long convoluted path up and down category trees to find highly related categories such as the 2 East Jerusalem subcategories. If those 2 subcategories are not put under Category:East Jerusalem, then they will have to be put under the much broader Category:Jerusalem. Look at the large number of entries in that category. It is silly to force people to wade through that to find stuff. People want to know about East Jerusalem, and we shouldn't be playing political games with the category names. It is very useful to be able to pass on a link to others for Category:East Jerusalem. Much more useful than passing on separate links for subcategories and Category:Jerusalem. One link versus 3 links. And don't forget the article, East Jerusalem. It also is incorporated in that one container link. Tewfik has now initiated a similar category for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19#Geography of the Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter 05:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your point about Category:Jerusalem. It doesn't have that many subcategories, and I don't understand why it would be harder to navigate if we remove the additional layer you are proposing. The new category would be directly in the Jerusalem one without the intermediary. Re passing links, just pass one of the two categories they want, or both of them. Re East Jerusalem: an accurate point. The article could be placed directly in Jerusalem, and perhaps in the new category too. In any case, categories are not kept for the sake of a single article. (overcategorization) nadav (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, and many others, want to be able to post a single link on wikipedia pages, websites, forum posts, emails, etc. that leads to all the wikipedia pages and categories concerning East Jerusalem. Only one link would do that: Category:East Jerusalem. --Timeshifter 06:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above--SefringleTalk 06:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Delete per Tewfik. Amoruso 08:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Controversial Beauty Pageant Contestants[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Beauty pageant controversies --Kbdank71 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose speedy delete Category:Controversial Beauty Pageant Contestants
Nominator's rationale: I have to admit spluttering when I saw this... EXTREMELY POV title and quite unnecessary cateogory. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 03:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wesleyan Univerity faculty[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Kbdank71. Bencherlite 07:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose speedy delete Category:Wesleyan Univerity faculty
Nominator's rationale: Category with correct spelling Category:Wesleyan University faculty has been created, and Category:Wesleyan Univerity faculty is now empty. T@nn 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:German Magic: The Gathering players[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:German Magic: The Gathering players
Category:German Magic: The Gathering players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Single person, unnecessary Category cruft. Hu 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I made this yesterday. We have a convention for sportspeople to make them "(Nationality) (sport) players," and we have consistently put competitive game players (poker, chess, bridge, Go, Scrabble) into Category:Sportspeople by sport and Category:Sportspeople by nationality. So I've been hunting these down and splitting them. As to the cruft part, it's possible that Kai Budde could get deleted, but I don't think so, as he may be the top Magic player of all time, and Magic is the top card game circuit other than poker in terms of publicity and prize money. So in my mind, he has to go in "German Magic: The Gathering players," because of the unique convention of Category:Sportspeople that all players should be categorized this way, whether or not they're the only one in their category. Whether someone like Peer Kroger, another high-profile German Magic player, joins Budde someday in the category is up to article writers.--Mike Selinker 15:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every category in Category:Magic: The Gathering players, including Category:Magic: The Gathering players. 132.205.93.83 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and other nationality cats, until Magic becomes an Olympic sport; but if we have articles on Magic players, their claim to notability should be a category. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poker, chess, bridge, Go, and Scrabble aren't Olympic sports. Neither are American football, cricket, horse racing, or lacrosse, yet we categorize them by nationality.--Mike Selinker 22:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless Category:Magic: The Gathering players becomes over populated, there is no reason to have sub-categories. Jay32183 01:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and similar cruft. Unles Magic the Gathering players becomes as notable as Boris Spassky and Gary Kasparov
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Criminal law by nationality[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Criminal law by nationality to Category:Criminal law by country
Category:Criminal law by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Criminal law by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match Category:Law by country. Baridiah 01:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Mowsbury 13:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Ipoellet 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. DuncanHill 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The subcategories of this cat also need to be straightened out. I see at least 3 different naming conventions in play. Hmains 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Welsh Peers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Welsh Peers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Peers of Wales, to match Peers of England, Peers of Scotland, and Peers of Ireland. -- Prove It (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a figment of the originator's imagination. There is no Welsh Peerage; these are Peers of the United Kingdom (or England) who have titles from Wales. There might be a category for Welshmen who are peers, but this is not it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Septentrionalis's says there has never been a Welsh peerage. Baridiah 01:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the creator is trying to follow the suggestion of Septentrionalis and create a "Welshmen who are peers" category within the existing UK peers convention. Rgds, --Trident13 08:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If so, he is not doing particularly well; the articles include the Earl of Cawdor, who is a Campbell; and several peers who live in the Home Counties and seem quite English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not fit into the existing convention, it breaks and ignores it. Please read up on how the peerage works. It is also incorrectly capitalized. Mowsbury 13:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a category of "Welshmen who are peers", but consider renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorisation. People are not notable for being peers except in the context of the peerage, and there is already a superior system of cateogorisation in place for the peerage. Haddiscoe 12:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Septentrionalis etc. Casperonline 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Peers of before 1707 creation hold English peerages (or Scottish or Irish); those created 1707-1801 may be British peers, and since 1801 peers of the United Kingdom. The only possible candidates would be marcher lords before 1536, but if they were peers, they held English peerages. The reason why this is an imaginary category is simple. Peers were entitled to sit in a House of Lords (except some Scottish and Irish peers after their Acts of Union, but there never was a Welsh House of Lords. Peterkingiron 23:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category misunderstands the peerage. The two articles are also full of misconceptions. Oliver Han 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Canadians of European descent[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Daniel 11:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadians of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as redundant. 83% of Canadians are caucasian, therefore of European descent. That means well over 80% of entries for Canadian people on Wikipedia ought to have this category, making it effectively pointless. Furthermore, it's often technically used in violation of WP:NOR and WP:V, as editors simply add it to any white person. I'm aware it's also a parent category of "Canadians of Scottish descent", etc., but. all those specific ethnicity sub-categories are already in Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin and that is sufficient. Mad Jack 06:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Categorization like this in general just leads to category clutter, and it does not look very useful for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 09:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a first step to removing all ethnic/race categories. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This and all similar categories are useful. And there is no reason whatever to have a WP goal of removing all ethnic/race categories for Canada or any other country. This describes what people are and where they are from; no reason for shame or concern. Hmains 02:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is only a nomination of "Canadians of European descent", not all the sub-categories like "Canadians of Scottish descent". "European descent" describes way too many people - the vast overwhelming majority of the population, and thus is pointless. It's the politically correct name for, essentially, "White Canadians". Mad Jack 03:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And includes many non-White Canadians; metis and mulattoes are of European descent, by definition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. Mad Jack 17:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why single out the European Candadians? There are similar 'European foos' categories for many foo countries. As well as 'Asian foos' etc. Is this another 'foot in the door' proposal to establish precedents to then go on the attack against ethnic/race categories again? Hmains 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not going on the attack against anything. Yes, I know there are "Asian-etc", but point is probably 90% of articles on Canadian people could include this category, making it pointless. The Asian category would only include something like 2%. Mad Jack 02:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Overbroad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and use as a precedent to attack ethnic/race categories again. Oliver Han 10:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_11&oldid=1142606410"