Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 28 June 30 >

June 29[edit]

Tanakh[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 15:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tanakh to Category:Hebrew Bible
Propose merging Category:Tanakh topics into Category:Tanakh, as there is no clear or consistent distinction between these two. If not merged, then repopulate both, with "topics" containing doctrinal themes, and sundry articles moving into the head category or a more specific sub-cat.
Substitute: Propose renaming Category:Tanakh topics to Category:Hebrew Bible topics, see graphic below
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh people to Category:Hebrew Bible people
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh places to Category:Hebrew Bible places

Consequent on the above (if agreed),

Propose renaming Category:Major Tanakh figures to Category:Major figures of the Hebrew Bible
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh monarchs to Category:Monarchs of the Hebrew Bible
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh nations to Category:Hebrew Bible nations
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh cities and countries to Category:Hebrew Bible cities and countries
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh cities to Category:Hebrew Bible cities
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh countries to Category:Hebrew Bible countries
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh geography to Category:Hebrew Bible geography
Propose renaming Category:Geography of Tanakh places to Category:Geography of Hebrew Bible places
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh mountains to Category:Hebrew Bible mountains
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh rivers to Category:Hebrew Bible rivers
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh valleys to Category:Hebrew Bible valleys

Late additions (proposed 1 July, but believed to be uncontroversial):

Propose renaming Category:Tanakh events to Category:Hebrew Bible events
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh manuscripts to Category:Hebrew Bible manuscripts
Propose renaming Category:Tanakh templates to Category:Hebrew Bible templates

Background: there were a number of overlapping categories including the terms Tanakh and Old Testament. An editor has depopulated the "Old Testament" categories, using AWB to transfer most or all the contents into the corresponding Tanakh categories. It is reasonable to merge them, although some of the recent moves are inappropriate, e.g. category:Old Testament books from Category:Old Testament topics into Category:Tanakh topics.

The article Hebrew Bible says,

Many scholars advocate use of the term Hebrew Bible as a neutral substitute in English to be preferred in academic writing over Old Testament, which alludes to the Christian doctrine of supersessionism, and Tanakh, the common Hebrew acronym which may be unfamiliar in other languages.

The neatest approach would be to keep most of the work already done in combining the categories, rename them including the term "Hebrew Bible", and use supercategories to hold other topics of particular relevance to Jewish or Christian readers e.g. Midrash and Apocrypha. - Fayenatic london (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Rename all per nom. Tanakh is an unfamiliar term to many people, and does not include all the material in at least the Catholic Old Testament. I've noticed some very aggressive renaming going on, and Hebrew Bible is, as the article says, a neutral and scholarly term that should be supported. Johnbod 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose what constitutes the Hebrew Bible is the subject of considerable dispute - ney, schism; among other things, it was the content of the then-current (Roman Catholic) Bible that so enraged Martin Luther to propel the reformation. The Tanakh for better or worse is a known set of text; what's in the Hebrew Bible depends on what religion you profess. For a quick and dirty table see Books of the Bible which lumps (incorrectly) all Protestants together, but early Protestants differed considerably on what was canonical - Luther considered several books (including Esther) non-canonical despite Esther being shown in the table as canonical for Protestants. I would have said that Luther was a Protestant, but I guess he wasn't a very correct one by WP's article. And if we could ever settle on the books, kumbaya, then there are the "additions" or "deletions" - depending on who you ask - of text from several of these (again Esther comes to mind) that remain in controversy. Let's keep with what we have: a known quantity, unless we want to divvy them up by book and put several parent cats over them called Category:Hebrew Bible according to the Roman Catholic Church, and others. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're thinking of the Old Testament. One of the advantages of using "Hebrew Bible" is precisely that it largely sidesteps these issues - see the article. Johnbod 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so: our article Hebrew Bible defines it thus: "Hebrew Bible is a term that refers to the common portions of the Jewish and Christian biblical canons." So being canonical in Christianity (as well as in Judaism) is necessary to be part of the Hebrew Bible. Christianity is not monolithic and opinion diverges as to what's canon, as I mentioned above; so is Hebrew Bible meant to those common portions canonical to all flavors of Christianity (as well as all of Judaism, although I'm not sure if there's much debate there)? or to some favored flavors of Christianity? Because no one can quite put their finger on it, the term leaves us in ambiguity. Carlossuarez46 05:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; It says "common to", not "used by either of", so those parts not considered canonical in Judaism are not included. This also means the intra-Christian disputes are avoided. Johnbod 13:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. For example, is Esther in or out? All of it? and Daniel (much of which is written in Aramaic not Hebrew)? All of it? There are certainly many parts of the Old Testament (depending on your religion) that are out: Maccabees (up to 4 of those), Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Odes, Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Nehemiah, 1 Esdras, and parts of several other books if the chart at Books of the Bible be trusted; and there are many sects of Christianity whose canon is not compared at that chart - so if one of them rejects the Book of Foo, then that drops out of the Hebrew Bible as not common to all Christianity even if the Jews declare the Book of Foo canonical. Regardless of ambiguity, there will continue to be a mismatch between the "Old Testament" and the "Hebrew Bible" so are we destined to be left with lingering categories Category:Foos of the Old Testament that is not part of the Hebrew Bible, or is organizing these by Book? Carlossuarez46 21:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It needn't be complicated. Lutherans now accept all of the Tanakh as scripture, so Hebrew Bible should have the same contents as Tanakh for everyone concerned. There is already a Category:Old Testament Apocrypha; whether that ever gets subdivided for branches of Christianity doesn't affect the current proposal. At the moment Category:Midrashim is within Category:Tanakh, which doesn't seem right to me; Category:Jewish texts already exists and probably provides the supercategory required for Judaism. See also Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture. Fayenatic london (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a very tough call, and a touchy subject to so many. While I really respect Judaism and it's self-identity and acknowledge that a lot of the articles in these topics are very central to their religion, I also cannot ignore the fact that there are 150 times as many Christians as Jews. The word Tanakh is a great word to use when describing things specific to Judaism. The word "Old Testament" is great when describing Christianity. Unfortunately, most of these categories deal with topics that are covered by both religions (and possibly Islam as well). It is offensive to Jews to describe their holy scripture as being an "Old" testament. Christians probably don't even know what Tanakh means and that word may fail the "use English words" part of the naming conventions. I really like the idea of using a neutral term to describe articles that pertain to more than one religion. I really disliked that we had redundant POV-fork category schemes to cover different religions. We'd have Abraham in Category:Old Testament people and Category:Tanakh people, even though it is the same work, just different religions. I really like the idea of having one category to cover this body of work, but I already encountered one problem: Holofernes. This individual was taken out of the OT people cat and moved to the Tanakh people cat, even though this individual is not found in the Tanakh (well, Holofernes isn't found in the Protestant OT either). Maybe we need a category for the apocryphal/deuterocanonical people as well, or maybe they could just go in the parent Category:Biblical people. Anyway, back on point, I'm not sure that Hebrew Bible is entirely accurate, nor that it will make every person 100% happy, but I think the term is more neutral/scholarly than the other two options (TNK/OT), and this proposal (consolidating the religious split POV-forked categories) is a great start.-Andrew c 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Hebrew Bible is a common name for this work, and sidesteps the problem of supersessionism. Tanakh is mostly (and I understand that it is mostly, not completely) a synonym for Hebrew Bible, and I think we can take care of any outliers with an apocrypha category. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker 02:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per Mike Selinker. Timotheos 22:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 15:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except for the Category:Tanakh topics proposal. Category:Tanakh topics should contain exactly those categories like Category:Midrashim and Category:Names of God in Judaism, which are not directly related to the text. (it should be changed to Category:Hebrew Bible topics for consistency, though). --Eliyak T·C 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I agree with that too. Let's keep the topics category separate (after changing it to "Hebrew Bible topics").--Mike Selinker 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there not a case for keeping Category:Tanakh topics and Category:Old Testament topics, under a main "Hebrew Bible topics"? Many articles like Name of Jesus in the Old Testament are of specific or Christian or Jewish interest, though of course many are not. Johnbod 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, "Hebrew Bible" is simply a synonym for "Tanakh." It cannot include Category:Old Testament topics, which is more expansive. --Eliyak T·C 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. One alternative is for Category:Old Testament topics to be a supercat of Hebrew Bible topics, holding articles such as that named above. If we set up a new sub-category for Jewish commentaries on the Bible, does that cover all Tanakh topic articles that might be of specifically Jewish interest? - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, There is information and a richness of vocabulary that is in the name Tanakh that is lost with these suggestions, especially now that you are advocating something else. D. Recorder 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Eliyak and Y support, then I do as well, though I think Tanakh would be best. It isn't an English word, it is certainly borrowed from Hebrew, but notice that in the interwikis - 11 out of 12 use transliterations of Tanakh- those languages borrow the word also. These category renamings have to be thoroughly considered as they cause many edits and effect many pages including breaking interwiki links from other language wikis. D. Recorder 22:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the other languages I have looked at have "Catégorie:Ancien Testament" etc - of which there are 19 against 11 Tanakh categories. Thanks to some rash category editing, all the OT categories now interwiki to Category:Old Testament topics, containing precisely ONE article. The damage of which you speak has already been done. This is trying to repait it. Johnbod 02:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: there is no change to the Rename proposal. The discussion immediately above is just about the sub-Category:Tanakh topics -- I have withdrawn my initial proposal to merge it into the parent. Another editor has placed all articles formerly in Category:Old Testament topics into Category:Tanakh topics, but this is one place where some articles are of specific interest to Jews or Christians. I've summarised this part of my suggested category hierarchy below. I also volunteer to fix all the affected interwikis. - Fayenatic london (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category: Jewish texts           Category:Old Testament
     |\                            /   |     \
     | \                          /    |      \
     |  \                        /     |       \ 
     |   \                      /      |        \
     |     Category: Hebrew bible     Category:    Category:Old Testament apocrypha
     |         /       \             OT topics 
     |        /         \            /      \       
     |  Cat:Jewish       \          /        \
     | commentaries       \        /          \
     |    /               Category:           articles about
     |   /                Hebrew Bible        Christian interpretation
    Category:                 topics             of Hebrew Bible
    Midrashim
Comment: The arrangement in the graphic looks very sensible to me Johnbod 13:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per 'use English words'. Tanakh is a technical term and would be preferable to the amorphous "Hebrew Bible", but I do agree that the vast majority of people have no idea what the word means. -- Y not? 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : more accessible to the average WP reader –SESmith 09:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : as some may include the roman catholic apocrypha in their definition of Hebrew bible tanakh is a better term --Java7837 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I will add explanatory text to each category page, saying that Hebrew Bible is used in Wikipedia categories to mean the same books as [Tanakh]]. As there are many categories that need it I'll use a new template:Hebrew Bible category. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:58, 5 July 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.

Categories named after musicians - A[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 all per precedent --Kbdank71 14:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A Fire Inside (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:A Tribe Called Quest
Category:Adam & the Ants
Category:Adler's Appetite
Category:The Afghan Whigs
Category:Alexisonfire
Category:Alice in Chains
Category:Alizée
Category:Angels and Airwaves
Category:Aphrodite's Child
Category:The Aquabats
Category:Louis Armstrong
Category:Art of Noise
Category:As I Lay Dying
Category:Asia (band)
Category:At the Drive-In
Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of these categories consist of one or more subcategories for the artist such as albums, songs or members, sometimes with the article for the band, rarely with a discography article which is linked to the band's article. We have deleted a number of similar eponymous musician and actor categories with this level of material as unnecessary overcategorization. Each of these categories is also overcategorization and should be deleted. Otto4711 23:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. At least a few of the bands are very notable and one cat contains both sub-articles and sub-categories... Ranma9617 05:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that the bands are notable does not mean that each band requires an eponymous category. Otto4711 05:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any that have multiple subcategories, neutral on others. Tim! 08:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all These categories are a useful supplement to other methods of navigation. Haddiscoe 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I'm okay wih these. They serve to unite three significant categories (members, songs, albums) and possibly others. It wouldn't be a disaster if they went away (unlike, say, Category:AC/DC, which has a bunch of articles that would be orphans), but for my usage they do serve a useful purpose. Regardless of what happens, let's end up with a consistent approach here. If this passes as a keep, let's leave all the musician categories alone. If it passes as a delete, let's get rid of all that have only this amount of contents.--Mike Selinker 13:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe those will all eventually be put back. This is why I try (and fail) to get consensus on a reason to delete, rather than just nominating them one at a time.--Mike Selinker 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many dozens of categories like this have to be deleted before you deem there to be a consensus? As for a reason to delete, WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people is the reason: As a general rule most people should not have their own eponymous category. The primary reason is that if every notable person had their own category, it would mean many hundreds of thousands of additional categories to maintain. Secondly, such categories normally are of, at best, limited, and in most cases no navigational benefit to readers. Typically, all articles directly related to the subject will be linked to from their main article. For example, an actor or artist will typically have a complete list of his works included in his main article, and a reader interested in reading those links will normally visit that person's article first before visiting a category named after them. Moreover, because notable people often interact with hundreds or thousands of other notable people, an eponymous category is open to misuse, tending to appear on any article that mentions them. Therefore as the navigational needs of the reader are usually adequately served by the person's main article, eponymous categories generally should not be created. The exception to this general rule is if the coverage of the person is split into multiple articles that can't be otherwise reasonably categorized. The categories for albums, songs and members all have well developed "by artist" category structures and do not require categories named for the artist. They do not have multiple articles that can't easily be categorized elsewhere. Your objection to these deletions, whether they be for individuals, families, TV shows or whatever, always comes down to simplisticly counting the number of sub-categories and nothing else. Otto4711 00:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any interest in fighting about it, Otto. We just disagree that these categories are a problem. I'm very happy that you were willing to nominate a group of categories, so we can discussion the merits of the guideline itself. For me, bands are more like companies than people, and so these are not eponymous categories. Just my opinion though.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlos Bulldog123 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no problem to address here. Alex Middleton 23:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Otto's detailed explanation in reply to Mike Selinker and the precedents. This is over-categorization: sub-categories are supported by other structures (e.g. albums by band) and the other articles do not need an eponymous category, as they are all linked through the main articles anyway. Bencherlite 01:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:OCAT. Ironically, it might end up being the case that it is more work deleting all these categories than to maintain them. If we can't convince people to stop making these categories, eventually, we might have to give up. But for now it is worth a try. My biggest objection to these categories is that they get categorized in inappropriate ways. They should NOT usually be put in categories where the eponymous articles are. There are some exceptions to this, but they are rare. --☑ SamuelWantman 07:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all The argument that these are not needed because "sub-categories are supported by other structures (e.g. albums by band)" is not convincing in the slightest. Most detailed categories are part of several "structures", and that is one of the main features and strengths of Wikipedia's category system. Dominictimms 17:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintaining hundreds or thousands of unnecessary categories is a weakness to Wikipedia because it requires that editors spend time on pointless maintenance instead of on substantive improvements. Maintaining the unnecessary categories also encourages editors to create more and more unnecessary categories, because of the bad example set by keeping them. Otto4711 18:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all There is nothing pointless about maintaining useful categories, and in any case, once these categories have been set up they shouldn't require any maintenance. Wimstead 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why these categories should be treated as exceptions to the general rule quoted above, or why they should be treated differently from the dozens or hundreds of similar categories which have already been deleted? Otto4711 16:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have been nominating obscure items one at a time, and they more or less slip under the radar. When this sort of bulk nomination is made, more users will get involved, and realise the damage that is being done. You do not have a valid consensus for deletion of this sort of category as a class because you have only attacked it at the fringes. It almost looks like you set out to create a series of precedents by attacking the weakest items first, so that you would be able to utilise those items at a later date. Even in this nomination you have left out the most notable items, like Category:ABBA and Category:Aerosmith. If you are confident that there is a consensus to delete these categories en masse, why did you omit some? Wimstead 19:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I do not appreciate your suggestion that previous nominations were in some way underhanded and quite frankly you should apologize for your failure to assume good faith. Second, you have not demonstrated that any "damage" has been done by the deletion of the various categories. Third, such artists as Alanis Morisette, ZZ Top, Weird Al Yankovick and Barbra Streisand can hardly be reasonably characterized as "obscure." Fourth, when I started approaching these categories, I did approach them systematically. Notice how under Category:Categories named after musicians there are very few entries under X, Y and Z? That's because all of the categories beginning with those letters that consisted of nothing more than song and album subcats and the band's article were nominated at the same time (April 8th for the Ys, for example). Fifth, I did not nominate the categories for ABBA and Aerosmith because they contain much more material than the couple of subcats and lone band article discussed in the nomination. Finally, your semi-personal attack, assumption of bad faith and complete lack of understanding of this nomination do not address in any way the notion that these categories, whether nominated singly or en masse, are overcategorization. Did you have any response to that or is attacking the nominator instead of his reasoning all you have? Otto4711 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are links to the albums and songs in the article, although in this instance they are not as well-organized as they could be. I have added direct links to the categories in a "See also" section to address the specific concern. Otto4711 01:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand your comment. If one reaches the albums category by way of albums by artist, then one has reached the albums category, which is the destination suggested by Fayenetic london. Otto4711 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all At least one of these artists is very prominent. I don't know about all the others, but deserve to be investigated separately. Sarsdran 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the prominence of an artist has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the artist should have an eponymous category. Every artist with an article on Wikipedia is "prominent" (notable); notability for purposes of having an article does not translate into necessity for a category, else every article would qualify for an eponymous category. Otto4711 23:42, 4 July 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.

Various Puglia categories[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 14:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wines of Puglia to Category:Wines of Apulia
Propose renaming Category:Wine grapes of Puglia to Category:Wine grapes of Apulia
Propose renaming Category:Wine in Puglia to Category:Wine in Apulia
Propose renaming Category:Puglia geography stubs to Category:Apulia geography stubs
Propose renaming Category:Coastal towns in Puglia to Category:Coastal towns in Apulia
Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns in Puglia to Category:Cities and towns in Apulia
Propose renaming Category:Rivers of Puglia to Category:Rivers of Apulia
Propose renaming Category:Lakes of Puglia to Category:Lakes of Apulia
Propose renaming Category:Geography of Puglia to Category:Geography of Apulia
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Puglia to Category:Churches in Apulia
Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Puglia to Category:Buildings and structures in Apulia
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Change Puglia to Apulia to match our main article's title (Apulia). I tried to put all these together with the section field, but it didn't work, if someone could consolidate them, I'd be much obliged. Carlossuarez46 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Bencherlite 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Carlossuarez46 22:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom to match lead article. Bencherlite 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Apulia" appears to be the English name for the location, whereas "Puglia" appears to be the Italian name. Is this a case where the categories should be renamed to use the English name in accordance with general Wikipedia naming conventions? Dr. Submillimeter 22:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Alex Middleton 23:32, 30 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:G-Unit albums[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 14:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G-Unit albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - part of the mess that is Category:G-Unit. As near as I can tell, this category is intended to hold articles on any album that any person loosely associated with the rap collective G-Unit, whether that person ever actually recorded under the name "G-Unit" or not. This is not appropriate categorization. Otto4711 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Lugnuts 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Enough articles have been written specifically about G-Unit to warrant keeping the category. However, the category needs to be severe purged. (I can do this with the AutoWikiBrowser if necessariy.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the category under discussion here is not Category:G-Unit. Otto4711 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - (Somehow, I clicked on the wrong category.) Yes, gathering together articles on solo albums for artists who only form a loose collective seems inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 22:52, 29 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:Young Hot Rod[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 14:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Young Hot Rod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous category not needed for this material; part of the G-Unit walled garden. Otto4711 17:44, 29 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:Young Buck[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 14:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Young Buck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - another unnecessary eponymous category from the G-Unit walled garden. Otto4711 17:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Lugnuts 19:15, 29 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:Freeway[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 14:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freeway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization; part of the G-Unit walled garden. Otto4711 17:41, 29 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:Lil Scrappy[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 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lil Scrappy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Another brick in the G-Unit walled garden; eponymous overcategorization.. Otto4711 17:40, 29 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:Trick-Trick[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 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trick-Trick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - more from the G-Unit walled garden. Overcategorization by name. Otto4711 17:38, 29 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:Tony Yayo[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 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tony Yayo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization; part of the Category:G-Unit walled garden. Otto4711 17:36, 29 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:Lloyd Banks[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 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lloyd Banks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - part of the G-Unit walled garden and eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 17:34, 29 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:Foo[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 Vegaswikian "db G2- Test". Bencherlite 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As this seems to be a pure test category, I suggest it should be removed, unless it's part of a help chain. →AzaToth 17:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we need some category as a test category, and Foo is more or less standard as a name for such things?DGG 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We don't need a test category. Cloachland 20:20, 29 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:U.S. Olympic Hockey Team[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 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. Olympic Hockey Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, single item category, not needed. -- Prove It (talk) 15:34, 29 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:Historical front organizations[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, without prejudice against future nominations --Kbdank71 14:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical front organizations to Category:Front organizations
Nominator's rationale: Merge - The term "historical" is vague, as it could indicate that the organizations are an arbitrary age (50, 100, or 500 years old) or that the organizations no longer exist. In this case, the category is used for two front organizations that existed in the 1980s. The other orgnaizations in Category:Front organizations are not sorted according to status, and most other front organizations no longer exist (as once they are identified, they are generally shut down), so the "historical" category should be merged into the parent category. (If kept, renaming to "defunct" might be worthwhile.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as specified. If we do make the separation, it would be better to start over and do it consistently. DGG 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think "front organization" is similar in nature to "cult", there are lots of organizations that are claimed to be "front ogranizations" which is always used derrogatorily so why perpetuate this? Carlossuarez46 22:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, but examine the "front organization" structure in a future nomination for POV and OR concerns. Otto4711 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, without prejudice against any future nomination of the merge target per Carlos and Otto. Xtifr tälk 10:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Alex Middleton 23:33, 30 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:Universal System[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, empty --Kbdank71 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universal System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category:Universal role-playing games already exists and has substantially more articles than this one, which only has one. T@nn 15:02, 29 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:Historical figures portrayed in The Divine Comedy[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 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical figures portrayed in The Divine Comedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete/Listify - Real people featured in fictional works are generally known for their real-life accomplishments, not for being featured in specific fictional works. This is especially true for people like Saladin, Muhammed, and Thomas Aquinas, among the other people in this category. Moreover, the real people who appear in this category may have also appear in many other works of fiction. Therefore, the category should be deleted. However, as the material is of interest to people studying the subject, it should be listified. (Also see See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 17#Category:Historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare, where a similar category for historical figures in Shakespeare was deleted and where I stated concerns about more categories for people featured in the works of "notable" people.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In this case I would keep it, because one of the key elements (and apparent motivations) in Dante's work was specifically his criticism of real historical figures -- many of which were contemporary political opponents.DGG 18:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't matter how important they were in Dante's work as the category is not on articles about his work, it is on articles about real people notable for other reasons. Cloachland 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for all the same reasons that the Shakespeare category was deleted. The people in the category are not notable for having been included in the fiction of a particular author and this opens the door to similar categories for any author who includes a historical figure in his or her work. Suggest listifying but not as a condition of deletion. Otto4711 22:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify - for the same reasons that the Shakespeare category was deleted, per my comments there (where I was a deletionist), and per Otto and Dr. Sub and many other participants in the prior debate. Carlossuarez46 23:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify 70.55.86.129 04:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining. Greg Grahame 14:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining. This just has to go if the Shakespeare category was deleted. Alex Middleton 23:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 12:26, 2 July 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:Historical GIS[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 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical GIS to Category:Historical geographic information systems
Nominator's rationale: Rename - This is a category for Geographic Information Systems used for studying history. The acronym "GIS" should be expanded for clarity. Note that the parent category uses the full title and not the acronym, although the corresponding article uses the acronym (although I will now attempt to move the article). Dr. Submillimeter 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The title is not a proper noun, so I am modifying my proposal to not capitalize the first letter of every word. Dr. Submillimeter 16:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Does it need the "Historical"? Xtifr tälk 10:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, although the article at Geographic information system (the non-redirect name) is a little ambiguous in its use of caps, which had me confused for a bit. I think nom has it correct now, but I'd be willing to listen to counterarguments. Xtifr tälk 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I did a Google search on the term. Some websites write the phrase "geographic information system" with capitals, while others do not. The phrase is frequently written in capitals just before defining the abbreviation GIS, which suggests that the capitals are added only to highlight the connection to the abbreviation. Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Wimstead 13:55, 3 July 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:Historic ships of Australia[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 precedent --Kbdank71 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historic ships of Australia to Category:Ships of Australia
Nominator's rationale: Merge - The term "historic" is very vague, as it could indicate that the ships are an arbitrary age (50, 100, or 200 years old), that the ships no longer exist, or that the ships are museum ships. Some of these ships were still in service as recently as the 1980s (Australia II, HMAS Diamantina (K377)). The category should be upmerged into Category:Ships of Australia, as the designation "historic" almost seems to be used arbitrarily in a way that is similar to "notable". (Note that some of the ships, such as SS Great Britain, are not even Australian.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. "Historic" isn't quite as bad as "Notable" or "Famous" in a category name, but it certainly has similar problems. Xtifr tälk 10:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Greg Grahame 14:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Chronological breakdowns are used in many areas of categorisation, but "Historic" is problematic. A breakdown by century would work better. Wimstead 13:56, 3 July 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:Historic places in Colombia[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 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic places in Colombia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - The term "historic" is very vague, as it could indicate that the places are an arbitrary age (50, 100, or 200 years old), that the places no longer exist, or that the places are in some type of government historic register. Moreover, the two articles in this category have nothing in common. Hacienda Napoles is a complex used by a contemporary drug lord, and New Kingdom of Granada is the former designation for the Spanish colony that encompassed Columbia. The category should be deleted outright. Dr. Submillimeter 14:25, 29 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:Historic houses in Monmouthshire[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 precedent --Kbdank71 14:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic houses in Monmouthshire to Category:Houses in Monmouthshire
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The use of the word "historic" is subjective. This could indicate that the buildings are an arbitrary age (50, 100, or 200 years old), that the buildings no longer exist, or that the buildings are in some type of government historic register. Because of this ambiguty, the category should be renamed. (Note the discussions from 19 Jun 2007 and 21 Jun 2007 for anomst all similarly-named categories, including the parent category (Category:Houses in Wales).) Dr. Submillimeter 14:17, 29 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:Historic houses in Ireland[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 precedent --Kbdank71 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic houses in Ireland to Category:Houses in Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The parent category is Category:Houses by country. Most other "historic house" categories were renamed without "historic" following discussions started on 19 Jun 2007 and 21 Jun 2007 because the term "historic" is vaguely defined. The term could refer to buildings that are an arbitrary age (50, 100, or 200 years old), buildings that no longer exist, or buildings that are in some type of government historic register. Frequently, it is used to just indicate "notable and old", in which case the term is not needed, as all Wikipedia articles should be on notable topics. Hence, the category should be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 14:14, 29 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:Historic civil engineering landmarks[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 14:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic civil engineering landmarks to Category:Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks
Nominator's rationale: Rename - This is an official designation by the American Society of Civil Engineers for civil engineering structures. The designation appears to be written as a proper noun, with the first letter of each word capitalized; see [1], for example. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: uneccessary as there is already a list of those structures 'approved' by the ASCE. As it is defined with finite numbers, WP guidelines would recommend listifying rather than categorising it. However, the description in the category's page is not in keeping with its members, which contains other significant stuctures as well. Ephebi 14:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please read the nomination carefully. This is merely a nomination to change the capitalization, not to delete it or remove the name "historic". Dr. Submillimeter 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Perhaps you should read my response carefully  ;-) as the category in question has moved away from the ASCE list (which already allows both formats). You'd do better aiming for consistency & dropping the 'historic' moniker Ephebi 14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It was unclear whether you were advocating for keeping the category as is or for keeping it but cleaning it up. A category for any "historic" civil engineering accomplishment would not be useful, as non-notable civil engineering works (e.g. non-historic civil engineering works) would not appear in Wikipedia. However, a category for the sites designated by the ASCE would be very useful, as the designation is not arbitrarily chosen by editors. (Could people adding comments after mine also indicate whether the category should be cleaned up to match the ASCE list?) Dr. Submillimeter 15:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks designated by the American Society of Civil Engineers and prune, or (second choice) delete. This is a subjective category unless it sticks to the official list. The current name appears to be global, but it is not. If the UN was doing the designating, the current name would be fine, but in the circumstances it does not reflect the local nature of the category. Cloachland 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a by-opinion category from a unofficial organization. Whereas the historic houses and listed houses appear to be so denoted by governmental entities, this is a civil engineering society bestowing "status" on various buildings and engineering works; are we going to have equivalent categories for the architect's organization, critics, Prince Charles, Time Magazine, Architectural Digest, and anyone else who has an unofficial opinion on what constitutes their "landmarks"? We have the list, the cat is overcat by "award". Carlossuarez46 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46 , but if kept rename to the long version proposed by Cloachland. Greg Grahame 14:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (preference) or Rename - The comments by Carlossuarez46 are correct. This list is not really an official designation but instead the opinion of a non-government entity as to what should be considered important. Looking at the ASCE pages, the designation does not appear to lead to any additional protection or preservation work at the site, nor does it change the way that such work is funded or the way that the site is managed. This ultimately appears to fall under the "inclusion in a published list" criterion at Wikipedia:Overcategorization, and so it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or rename per Cloachland, not nom, if kept). This looks like it is effectively a case of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners. I don't think the award is notable enough to justify a category, but if it is, the category definitely should be renamed to clarify the non-official status of this designation. Xtifr tälk 01:40, 3 July 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:Historic buildings of Louisville[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 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings of Louisville to Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville
Suggest merging Category:Historic houses of Louisville to Category:Houses in Louisville
Nominator's rationale: Merge - The use of the word "historic" is subjective. This could indicate that the buildings are an arbitrary age (50, 100, or 200 years old), that the buildings no longer exist, or that the buildings are in some type of government historic register. Because of this ambiguty, the articles should be moved into categories that do not use the term "historic". (Note the discussions from 19 Jun 2007 and 21 Jun 2007 for anomst all similarly-named categories.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSupport (with implemented suggestion below). 'Historic' is a valid editorial judgment that can be based on various obvious factors, such as age or listing in a historic register. Further, these categories are naturally both descendants of Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville and Category:History of Louisville. Implementing these proposed changes would wreck that category structure that helps readers find articles. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Allowing editors to make "editorial judgments" as to whether to include or exclude articles in categories may lead to interpretation problems. Moreover, choosing an arbitrary (and unstated) age for differentiating between "historic" and "modern" buildings is impractical and contrary to the recommndations at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Categorizing articles by whether they are in historic registers is useful, as being in a historic register is objectively defined. However, other categories exist for buildings in historic registers (such as Category:Registered historic buildings of Lousiville). Dr. Submillimeter 20:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree there is any "overcategorization" here. And it is not impractical in the least to distinguish buildings according to age -- why else do we have historic preservation? (Do we actively seek to preserve buildings erected in the 1980's, or 1880's?) However, I am open to considering more specific category naming, such as "Louisville buildings constructed pre-1900". Otherwise, we will have an unnecessarily fat building and structures category. If you don't care about that, fine, but I care deeply about categorization of Louisville-related articles and I will keep them under control. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and precedents. Cloachland 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/rename per nom. Alex Middleton 23:35, 30 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:Political parties in the Pitcairn Islands[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 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political parties in the Pitcairn Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: According to Politics of the Pitcairn Islands, there are no such parties, and they're unlikely to develop in the foreseeable future. Thus, this category is doomed to remain empty. Digwuren 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty and without room for growth. LeSnail 18:07, 2 July 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:Historic Virginia state highways[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 14:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic Virginia state highways to Category:Former Virginia state highways
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historic" here is being used to refer to highways that no longer exist. However, "historic" could just as easily be interpreted as simply old, or it could refer to some type of designation at the state or federal level for currently existing highways (such as highways that pass by several National Historic Sites). Therefore, I recommend using the term "former", which more clearly indicates that these highway designations are no longer in use. Dr. Submillimeter 13:44, 29 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:Energy in the UK[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 keep and correct to a {categoryredirect} --Kbdank71 14:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Energy in the UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Re-direct category only. Delete to dissuade incorrect use.
— superbfc (talk · contribs) 2007-06-29Z11:49
  • Keep This is exactly what category redirects are for. Cloachland 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this seems to be a regular redirect, not a category redirect. As such, it should probably go to WP:RFD instead of being listed here. Aren't regular redirects for categories a really bad idea, in general? Xtifr tälk 10:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects for categories are a good idea, in general. Greg Grahame 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and relist at RFD. Whilst category redirects are sometimes useful, this is a misused regular redirect anyway. Bencherlite 12:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after converting it to {categoryredirect}. Sohelpme 02:24, 4 July 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:Competitors for Great Britain at the 1908 Summer Olympics[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 upmerge to Category:Olympic competitors for Great Britain per precedent --Kbdank71 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Competitors for Great Britain at the 1908 Summer Olympics to Category:Competitors for Great Britain and Ireland at the 1908 Summer Olympics
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article Great Britain and Ireland at the 1908 Summer Olympics. The 1908 team (and AFAIAA all teams up to the 1924 Olympics - see Great Britain and Ireland at the 1924 Summer Olympics - even although Ireland had left the Union a couple of years previously) included athletes from throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not simply the former. While I am here, it is worth pointing out that Category:Great Britain at the Olympics is rather unfortunately misnamed. Mais oui! 09:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Over categorization by year/nation combinations. The Olympics project categorizes by years, by countries, and by events; but, not by the cominations. Several recent (2000- ) similar cats were delete recently, and the two remaining sets of years (1904 and 1908) will be nominated en masse when I get back from my wikibreak (provided someone does not take care of it before then). Neier 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unchanged - Even though the official name of the nation in 1908 was "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", the name of the Olympic team has always been just "Great Britain". The IOC currently uses just "Great Britain", and the official report from almost every Games since 1896 uses just "Great Britain" (or "Grande-Bretagne"). (Ironically, the 1908 report uses something else, namely "United Kingdom"!) The category is correctly named; it is the article that needs renaming. Andrwsc 00:34, 4 July 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:Tamworth Country Music Festival[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 14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tamworth Country Music Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one article within this category directly relates to the festival. The other (which I've since removed), was an article on the city of Tamworth itself. I propose deletion as overcategorisation. -- Longhair\talk 08:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also ambigious to which Tamworth it's referring to without checking the articles in the cat. Lugnuts 11:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment - not in the context of country music - Tamworth is probably second only to Nashville in terms of country. As such, it's a little like requiring that an article's name be changed to "Boston, Massachusetts, Tea Party" since there is more than one Boston. Having said that, deletion is probably in order. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just not required. Cloachland 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cloachland and Grutness. Rebecca 08:24, 2 July 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:Communist propaganda[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 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communist propaganda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Clear POV category. Why should communist media and newspapers be dubbed as 'propaganda'? Soman 07:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because that was an official part of their chartered purpose? In general, Communists didn't view the term 'propaganda' as having negative connotations.
  • Keep, at least until a better rationale for deletion is offered. Digwuren 17:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "propaganda" is a value neutral word, even the Pope has his Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, as is "Communist" - if you know what they are you may or may not like them, but it's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is no reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly legitimate category. Greg Grahame 14:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Makes the mistake of simplifying the complex phenomenon to a list of newspapers, mixing a tool having a convenient functional attribute with an activity. Even this list is lousy, missing pearls like Der Schwarze Kanal.
The current category is not fixable until actual articles about communist propaganda appear on WP. E.g. for Czechoslovakia the proper items here would be (1) official directives issued by the central committee and their implementation, (2) the departement of central committee reponsible for the propaganda, (3) use of modern art in propaganda, (4+) history (pre-war propaganda is a very interesting topic), laws and their changes, counter-propaganda to the West, etc. Pavel Vozenilek 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to :Category:Communist mass-media as this is what category contains, but keep anyway. Johnbod 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who helped Jews during the Holocaust[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 13:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who helped Jews during the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A seemingly useful category, but not one based on an objective standard of membership. Can be problematic in biographies where the role of the person during the Holocaust is disputed or mixed (such as Joel Brand or Pope Pius XII). If the standard of membership is if the person helped Jews at all (even if they also did some things that hurt them), then maybe we have to add it to Adolf Eichmann for his work with Zionists, Adolf Hitler for Eduard Bloch, etc. I would suggest categories based on objective and indisputable criteria, such as Category:Righteous Among the Nations, which already exists, instead. Savidan 06:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vaguely named, subjective category. Doczilla 06:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There needs to be some way of formed a category for those who have been claimed to rightly or wrongly to have such status, but who are not necessarily within the very well defined Category:Righteous Among the Nations, but I cannot immediately ting of a NPOV name. DGG 19:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no way to tell who's in and who's out, unlike the "Righteous ..." cat. I also agree with DGG's comments, but I cannot formulate a wording that makes sense, it's a little like actors who deserved the oscar but the academy didn't bestow it, which is horribly POV but there you have it....Carlossuarez46 22:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The contents of an article should be the criteria for which categories the article belongs to. If the contents show these people helped, then then should go into this category; if the article content is wrong, then it should be changed. Nothing POV about this; just facts. Look at this categories to which this category belongs for why this name was used (not by me, by the way) Hmains 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such determinations appear arbitrary to me. Whether someone has "helped" someone else is relatively subjective. Savidan 17:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 14:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Bulldog123 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete, "helped" is fairly subjective, and moreover, for many people, this is in no way a defining characteristic. Excellent list material, though, since the criteria for inclusion can be included (and debated) on a per-member basis. Xtifr tälk 20:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 15:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vague categorisation. Categories are not here to duplicate the text of article or serve as a tags. Pavel Vozenilek 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with DGG, but it's not the same as "actors who didn't win an Oscar". Supposedly these people saved Jews, but weren't recognized for it. If somebody's researching exactly those type of people, how will they find them? Misheu 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep nominator's rationale is too absurd and extreme. D. Recorder 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vague criteria for inclusion. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete better to replace a subjective category like this with a category like Category:Righteous Among the Nations with an absolute inclusion criterium. Can the supporters of this category provide examples of individuals who should be categorized but wouldn't be in Righteous Among the Nations? GabrielF 21:56, 4 July 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:University of Southern California Trojans baseball 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matching all other such categories, e.g. Category:USC Trojans football players. We use the most common name of the school before the sport in all cases, including all subcategories of Category:College baseball players.--Mike Selinker 04:37, 29 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.

Burials redux[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 13:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials in Glasnevin Cemetery to Category:Burials at Glasnevin Cemetery
Category:Burials in Mount Jerome Cemetery to Category:Burials at Mount Jerome Cemetery
Category:Burials in St. Fintan's Cemetery, Sutton to Category:Burials at St. Fintan's Cemetery (no disambiguator needed)
Category:Buried in Fremantle Cemetery to Category:Burials at Fremantle Cemetery
Category:Buried in Karrakatta Cemetery to Category:Burials at Karrakatta Cemetery
Category:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills) to Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills)
Category:Forest Lawn Memorial-Parks & Mortuaries to Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale) (if this is accurate)
Category:Jews buried in the Mount of Olives to Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives (no ethnic group needed for a Jewish cemetery)
Category:People buried at Imogiri to Category:Burials at Imogiri
Category:People buried at the Panthéon to Category:Burials at the Panthéon
Category:People buried at the Zentralfriedhof to Category:Burials at the Zentralfriedhof
Category:People buried in Brompton Cemetery to Category:Burials at Brompton Cemetery
Category:People buried in Greyfriars Kirkyard to Category:Burials at Greyfriars Kirkyard
Category:People buried in Highgate Cemetery to Category:Burials at Highgate Cemetery
Category:People buried in Kensal Green Cemetery to Category:Burials at Kensal Green Cemetery
Category:People buried in San Michele to Category:Burials at Isola di San Michele
Category:People buried in West Norwood Cemetery to Category:Burials at West Norwood Cemetery
Category:People buried in Westminster Abbey to Category:Burials at Westminster Abbey
Category:Woodlawn Cemetery, Bronx burials to Category:Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery (The Bronx)
Category:Burials at Graceland Cemetery, Chicago to Category:Burials at Graceland Cemetery (Chicago)
Category:Burials at Oakwood Cemetery, Syracuse to Category:Burials at Oakwood Cemetery (Syracuse)
Category:People buried in space to Category:Space burials

This is a followup nomination to the one we just had on Burials. There the closer correctly interpreted the result as a keep. But I made a separate nomination to standardize the style to "Burials at...", as the main category uses this most prevalently. "Burials in" would also be fine, and if that's the direction chosen here, I'll nominate the rest after we standardize these. This is not a renomination for deletion, as consensus is clear that these categories should be kept. It is merely a discussion on standardized formats.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm neutral on the question of whether standardising these is really necessary or desirable. But if the decision is taken to standardise, I'm opposed to the rather strange sounding "burials in" or "burials at" format as proposed. "People buried in" or "People buried at" is much clearer, and clarity is much more important than brevity. If brevity is really that important, then "Buried in" or "Buried at" is still better than what is proposed here. Hesperian 01:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's a brevity issue. Like I said, I'm happy to settle on one standard. The reason I don't think we need "people," though, is that we already use "1984 births" and "1969 deaths," and people aren't "births" or "deaths." Just my opinion, though. (I don't like "Buried at" by itself, though, because a category entry should be a noun.)--Mike Selinker 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: "births" and "death", that is true. It is pretty hard to argue with that. Hesperian 04:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I very much concur with Hesperian on these matters. ISTR it took a few attempts to get the right terminology about a year ago for the 'People buried in ...' format Ephebi 07:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, though like him, I'm happy to standardize on consensus. Johnbod 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nam. --Philip Stevens 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by dropping the 'People...' prefix does this mean we intend to expand the Burials category to include buried items other than people, e.g. pet cemeteries, coin hordes, Carbon capture and storage, coal & oil, etc?Ephebi 07:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny you should bring that up, Ephebi. I think a strong case can be made for Greyfriars Bobby being included in a category called "Burials at Greyfriars Kirkyard." The dog was buried just outside the cemetery due to the hallowed ground concern, so he's not "People" and he's not "in" the cemetery. But he certainly fits in "Burials at Greyfriars Kirkyard". Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 17:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not everybody gets buried 'in' the abbey, in which case 'at' may be more accurate if they are interred in the grounds. I think Buried in... is generally good expression, but if you are trying to standardise its only one technique, and 'at' may be more technically accurate - others commonly include catacombs, an urn in a recordia, columbaria. Not to mention the less geograpically-specific ones like sati, sky burial and space burial. Ephebi 07:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. May want to reconsider Category:Burials at Graceland Cemetery, Chicago to Category:Burials at Graceland Cemetery (Chicago). There is a Graceland Cemetery in Abbeville, Louisiana, Valparaiso, Indiana, Freeborn County, Minnesota, one in the Washington DC area, Superior Wisconsin and probably many more. Clearly the Chicago one is the primary use, but since it was already dabbed, why not leave it as a dab? Vegaswikian 08:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using "People buried in/at" - The version starting with "people" just seems less awkward than the "burials" version. Dr. Submillimeter 08:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This completes moving several different forms to a common standard. As to including people, follow the lead of yyyy births and deaths which don't include people. If this is perceived as an issue, add a common introduction to each category like the one for Category:Burials at Graceland Cemetery, Chicago. Or we could change the word burials to what that article says is the more exact term for human internments which is inhumation. Vegaswikian 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment doesn't "in" and "at" depend on the location? Someone is buried at (or in) Arlington, one is buried in (not "at" in American English usage) Westminster Abbey, one is "buried" in (not at) space, one is "buried" at (not in) sea. So these burial categories - now they've been kept - cannot be fully consistent anyway. Carlossuarez46 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I would recommend using "in" for cemeteries and "at" for buildings and the ocean, but I have no recommendations for space. Both "buried in space" or "buried at space" sound strange. Dr. Submillimeter 13:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Greg Grahame 14:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using "Buried at ..." per nom. with the exceptions above for unusual circumstances. This gives us as fair degree of consistency, and allows inclusion of Greyfriars Bobby et. al. Ephebi 16:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as follows: per Dr. Sub's comment of 13:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC): "in" for cemeteries; "at" for buildings and sea, and "space burials" for those per Mike Selinker's rejoinder of 13:53. Carlossuarez46 21:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The notable burial places listed include folks disposed of in less traditional ways than internment. My dictionaries (US & Eng) don't help here, but I would have thought that 'in' is too specific as it does not cover the use of locked vaults, raised catacombs, scattering of ashes, urns held in columbaria, etc., and circumstances where the unbaptised or dissenters were buried just outside the consecrated grounds. Ephebi 10:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If someone is placed within a catacombs or vault in a cemetery, he could still be described as "in" the cemetery (i.e. "in" the boundaries of the cemetery), just not in the ground. (Or is the point that the person is not actually "buried"?) Dr. Submillimeter 12:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've answered your own question - in that instance they are placed in the catacombs in, or at, a place. Ref 'bury', arm yourself with a good dictionary, you'll see at has more than one context. Here its used for any method of dealing with the dead. Thus burying something in the ground is one context, disposing of a corpse by burying it in someplace or at some place is a different context. Ephebi 13:31, 1 July 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_29&oldid=1138388429"