Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6[edit]

Category:Louisville museums[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Museums in Louisville. anthonycfc [talk] 18:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Louisville museums to Category:Museums in Louisville
Nominator's Rationale: Rename Convention of Category:Museums by city. Wilchett 22:51, 6 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in Durham diocese[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. I cant' find the category PMJ pointed out but this one's empty anyway.--Wizardman 13:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in Durham diocese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Redundant category, Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in Diocese of Durham is used instead. — PMJ 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (edited to fix typo)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hoenn locations[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hoenn locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It was useful but now it has only two articles that's in the category, the rest was merged to a new page. So I think it should be removed. TheBlazikenMaster 21:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No longer useful for categorization.—M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's an article dedicated to that now, so there's no point.—ウルタプ 01:31, 11 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Antisemitic canards[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep - anthonycfc [talk] 06:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitic canards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unfortunately it severely violates WP:NPOV, by making the accusation that the subject of the article is a canard (canard = "a false and baseless claim"). Though I may personally agree with the sentiment that the various claims are canards, this is still only a personal opinion, not a concretely proven fact beyond dispute. Imagine adding a "Category:Fundamentalist Christian Canards" to the Teach the Controversy article. --User talk:FDuffy 20:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is reserved for anti-Jewish ATTACK stories which have been widely recognized as factually incorrect by competent scholars or authorities in the relevant field, but which are still continually dragged out to ATTACK Jews year after year for decades. Note the first distinction between this category and Intelligent Design -- intelligent design was not contrived for the purpose of attacking or denigrating any one national/religious/ethnic or racial group of people. The second difference is that the main dispute over Intelligent Design is actually not whether it's true or false, but rather whether or not it's science -- a dispute which quickly leads to abstract realms of philosophy and falsifiability. By contrast, the disputes involved in the "canards" category are largely about simple facts, dates, and events. So keep. AnonMoos 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Previous CFD is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_6#Category:Anti-Semitic_canards -- AnonMoos 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be merged with Category:Antisemitism, because it's convenient to have a distinct category to gather together the specifically anti-Jewish myths or stories which never die, but continue on and on decade after decade, no matter how often or how conclusively they've been debunked and refuted. A proposal which emerged in the last CFD, and gained some support, was to rename it to "Category:Persistent antisemitic narratives", but this wasn't done... AnonMoos 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename - As AnonMoos pointed out, this category is for stories which are widely recognized as false by scholars and other reliable sources, therefore not violating NPOV. It is a useful category, but the term "canard" is unusual. If "Antisemitic canards" is the name most commonly used for this subject in reference works, then it should stay. If it is not a common name, than the category should be renamed to something like Category:Persistent Anti-Semitic beliefs, as proposed in the previous CfD. - Jwillbur 01:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonMoos and per previous failed CFD. This is not merely about "beliefs" or "various claims", but rather about deliberate frauds and fabrications persistently (for generations) used to attack Jews. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's all true, notable, and verified. Shall we vote to "delete" antisemitism next and pretend that it does not exist? IZAK 13:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While categories do have to be NPOV they do not need to be conserved about extreme minority opinions. Note for example, September 11, 2001 attacks is in Category:Islamist terrorism despite the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories. If this was not the case almost all categories would be NPOV, since there is almost always someone who disagrees with something. Jon513 14:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "Canard" has to go, since it is not merely POV but disparaging. The category itself may some value, however, and renaming might help refine that. semper fictilis
  • Keep, these are notable, verifiable persistent myths. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:03, 9 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fox Broadcasting Company personalities[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete; anthonycfc [talk] 06:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fox Broadcasting Company personalities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as an inappropriate performer by network categorization. Otto4711 17:45, 6 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CNN 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CNN people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another personality by network categorization. Otto4711 17:42, 6 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UEFA European Football Championship goalscorers[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UEFA European Football Championship goalscorers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This is another "football player who scored in a championship" category. As stated before, sportspeople in general have many categories, and sorting people by whether they scored in a championship simply adds to category clutter. Also, as stated before, categories like this are not created for other sports championships. Therefore, this category should be deleted. (I can provide links to the previous discussions on similar categories that were deleted.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Dr. Submillimeter. -- P199 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a useful way of grouping players. Some players who do not score a goal in any given tournament play a

more prominent role in the competition than most of those that did. Haddiscoe 18:37, 6 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bangladeshi laws[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was } already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bangladeshi laws (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, With the existence of Category:Bangladeshi law, which is a part of Category:Law by country this empty category is completely redundant. Aditya Kabir 16:08, 6 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alanis Morissette[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alanis Morissette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - cat contains subcats for albums and songs, both of which are correctly housed under Albums by artist and Songs by artist parents, and three articles which are all linked together. No need for this eponymous category. Otto4711 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It would sure be nice if we had a guideline about musician categories before they're all nominated independently. Mine would be, "If the artist has at least two subcategories, it stays." But I'm sure that's not everyone's opinion.--Mike Selinker 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying through the CFD process to help develop some guidelines, I think that's an OK thing to do. My quibble with the "two cats and you're in" criterion is that pretty much every musician since the inception of recorded music is going to have an albums and a songs category. Since their discographies should be in their articles that in my mind is insufficient reason to have the category. I think the categories need to be looked at for depth and not just volume. This category as I mentioned has three articles in it, all of which are linked to each other. The main article Alanis Morissette serves as the navigational hub because all of the articles and the categories are accessible through it as easily as through the category. Someone with a more extensive field of articles that aren't as logically linkable through each other is more likely to need an eponymous category. But just counting the number of subcats pr articles doesn't seem like enough of a rationale. YMMV as always. Otto4711 21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I wonder what it hurts to have categories like this. Works derive from people, so it follows logically that work categories are subcategories of people categories.--Mike Selinker 00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOHARM. It "doesn't hurt" to have a lot of the categories we delete, but "what's the harm" is rightly rejected as an argument for keeping. The potential "harm" is in adding to the category clutter on articles (Alanis has some 30 on hers, some admittedly relating to sourcing but still more than two dozen) and in the precedent that keeping them sets in trying to delete other categories that may be more "harmful." If there is sufficient material on a subject to warrant an eponymous category, then I have no objection to it. But in the case where the category is doing nothing but serving as an unnecessary layer of categorization it should be deleted. Her discography is easily accessible through her article, which is where anyone interested in her is going to start anyway. Otto4711 01:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too few directly relevant articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamrtalk 02:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both of the articles already belong to other appropriate categories, so this category isn't needed for those. The subcategories are likewise already included in other good parents. Finally her main article contains a complete discography, so the main article serves as a fully functional hub for those links. Delete this eponymous category as unnecessary. Dugwiki 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. semper fictilis 21:51, 7 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Torchwood 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Torchwood people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - the category is holding subcats for cast, writers and directors, which will be emptied and deleted by the end of the day. The category will then be empty and can be speedily deleted. Otto4711 15:31, 6 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:RCA Records artists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify. >Radiant< 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:RCA Records artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this is something of a "test the waters" nomination. Recording artists are extensively categorized by what label or labels they recorded for. This strikes me as being very akin to categorizing television performers by the networks for which they've worked. I understand that it is less likely for a recording artist to hop from label to label the way an actor or a commentator may jump from network to network but the similarity between the categorization scheme leads me to conclude that musician by record label is a form of overcategorization. Certainly the label should be mentioned in the artists' articles and I have no quarrel with listifying before deletion. Otto4711 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (as first impression) My first impression here would be to agree with Otto. This sounds akin to actors-by-studio, which is generally deleted since actors often work for many studios in their career. I could see that musicians-by-record-label might suffer some of the same problems, although I could be wrong. So I'm leaning toward delete, but I'm certainly open to counter-arguments. Dugwiki 17:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unlike actors, musicians sign long-term contracts with recording studios and may only work with one or two recording studios during their careers. Therefore, the identification of a musician with a studio is more meaningful than the identification of an actor with a studio. In some cases, the studio also indicates the style or origin of the music (especially a famous studio such as Motown Records), which is an additional reason to keep. Furthermore, since articles on performers are unlikely to have more than a couple of these categories, the studios categories should not contribute to category clutter. (Like Dugwiki, however, I am open to counter-arguments.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the American studio system, actors signed long-term contracts with individual studios and became strongly identified with the studios. MGM, Paramount, RKO, etc. had stables of stars and distinctive production values. I understand what you're saying as well but the identification of movie star with studio is for many stars of that era possibly stronger than the identification of most recording artists with their labels. Otto4711 18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The practice of actors signing long-term contracts with studios was a common practice in the first half of the 20th century, but it is not a common practice anymore. Since actors may now work on projects at many different studios, classifying them by studio is inappropriate. However, musicians still sign long-term contracts with recording studios, so classifying them by recording label does make sense. The two situations are different. Dr. Submillimeter 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are different but still analogous, especially since we don't distinguish between current and former in categorization. And actually, television actors do frequently sign seven year contracts at the start of a new series. Someone like, say, Sarah Michelle Gellar, who was under long-term contract to (I assume) Mutant Enemy, could arguably more reasonably be categorized under Category:Mutant Enemy actors than someone who recorded a single album for FictionRecords Inc. be categorized under Category:FictionRecords artists. Otto4711 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete and listify. I agree that some musicians are strongly associated with a particular label, and, especially in the case of some indie labels, the association can be strong enough to be considered defining. Nevertheless, successful musicians with long careers will have often worked with many labels, and these articles are most likely to already be suffering from category bloat. Frank Zappa (for example) would need five new categories if he were categorized by label(s). That's on top of the thirty-two (!) categories he already has. I think lists would work just as well for the indies, and would be a far better choice for many others, like Zappa. Xtifr tälk 11:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 13:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ZZ Top[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:ZZ Top (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - article is serving as a container for articles about each of the band members, the band, and a former band that two of the members were in, along with subcats for their songs and albums. All of the articles are extensively interlinked with the main article and each other and the subcats are appropriately categorized as children of the Songs by artist and Album by artist categories. There is no need for this eponymous category. Otto4711 14:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Does a fine job of uniting its three categories and articles. I'm in favor of keeping all of these band categories.--Mike Selinker 19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually by making Category:ZZ Top members and locating it under Category:Musicians by band I think you're kinda proving my point for me. All three of the subcats have logical parents and all of the articles in the subcats and the only other article in the category are all easily accessible through the main ZZ Top article. Otto4711 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's best, though, when a category has two parents. See the "Antisemitic canards" debate above. Antisemitism is a category, but Canards is not, so it comes into question. Here, "members" is a category (Musicians by band), and ZZ Top should be as well.--Mike Selinker 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unaware of any requirement that a category have two parents or even that it's automatically preferable that a category have two parents. The comparison to the "canards" discussion doesn't really follow, as in that instance the dispute is about the POV name of the category. I am not suggesting that there is any such flaw in the name of this category, but that the category itself is redundant to the perfectly adequate linkages that already exist in the article. Otto4711 01:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category isn't necessary here. The subcategories are already appropriately included in other parents and the only two articles in this category are the main article and an article which should probably simply appear in the main article under "See also". ZZ Top's complete song list and discography likewise appear in the main article as well. So this category serves pretty much no navigational purpose that the main article isn't serving. Delete as unneeded eponymous category. Dugwiki 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CJOH people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:CJOH people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another improper performer by network categorization. Otto4711 14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The last discussion reached no consensus, so further discussion is warranted. As with other people by network categories, the people at CJOH have worked elsewhere; see, for example, Peter Jennings and Alanis Morissette. As stated before, categorization by network is inappropriate, since people work for many networks during their careers and since the categories lead to category clutter. Moreover, in light of the deletion of similar categories for other TV networks (such as Category:NBC personalities and Category:CBS personalities) and the status of pending nominations to delete other "people by network" categories (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 5, for example), this category should also be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cmacd. GreenJoe 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per similar cfds for other actor-by-network categories. It also looked like this cfd was leaning toward a possible deletion at the time it was closed for no consensus, so I don't have a problem with the discussion continuing. Dugwiki 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. This is even less valid than most other categories of this type because it is just for one local part of a network. Haddiscoe 18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus against this type of categorization has been pretty clear, and I don't see any compelling reason to treat this one as a special exception to that. Delete. Bearcat 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inappropriate "Person by Employer" category. —J Greb 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - renominating this category less than a month after its last CfD is unjustifiably seems too soon, and is tantamount to an immediate renomination - violation of see WP:DEL#Renominations and recurring candidates. Dl2000 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't appreciate the suggestion that I have acted in bad faith in nominating this category. I did not notice that it had been nominated previously and even the hint that I deliberately did something improper is unacceptable. Otto4711 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, particularly for leaving the impression that Otto4711 had renominated this when in fact another editor made the previous nomination. No bad faith accusation was intended, but official policies such as WP:DEL should still be factored into the discussion. Dl2000 03:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would say that the renomination is justified for two reasons. First, the previous discussion reached no consensus. Second, several similar categories were deleted while this one was not. For these reasons, re-examining this category is warranted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Bearcat. A prior "no consensus" result is certainly not a precedent against deletion, let alone relisting, especially considering the clear deletion precedents in similar categories. The procedural complaints are therefore misplaced, and insufficient as the only objections to deletion. Postdlf 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the previous discussion identified the Sui generis nature of the legacy of Ernie Bushnell and CJOH. because of its unique place in time and space, it was the training ground for many important figures in North American TV/Radio/media. cmacd 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the only person in the previous debate who claimed that CJOH had some special legacy of significance as a training ground for important media figures was you; everybody else who voted to keep it did so on the grounds that it was parallel to the very "personalities by network" categories that are now being deleted as unwarranted overcategorization. CJOH most certainly hasn't ever been some kind of uniquely significant birthplace for media personalities; it has no more claim to significance in this regard than any other major market television station in North America. Every TV station that existed in the 1950s and early 1960s had to develop a lot more locally oriented programming than TV stations do now, and a lot of those personalities went on to greater fame. CJOH isn't unique that way. Bearcat 06:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If precedent is against performer by network there certainly shouldn't be any question about performer by individual station. There is obviously room for textual mentions of the link and probably even room for a list of people linked to CJOH, but not notable enough for a category, IMO. - Cafemusique 04:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Data Vault[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Data Vault (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Looks like new user created a category rather than an article by mistake. There will only every be one article associated with this category. Stephenpace 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:ASEAN[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename, do not use abbrev. >Radiant< 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ASEAN to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Based on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(acronyms)#Acronyms_as_words_in_article_titles, acronyms are acceptable if they ase used in common usage (evidence: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), so I guess using the less lenghty Category:ASEAN would be better since it would attract less clutter and also it would avoid renaming disputes such as Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations members versus Category:Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations for Category:ASEAN members. --23prootie 13:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Anyway, I've read Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Abbreviations:_to_expand_or_not_to_expand.3F and it said there that if an acronym becomes a word it becomes acceptable, well sometimes people use the word Asean-pronounced AH-SEE-AHN-to describe ASEAN, so I guess that makes this acceptable. --23prootie 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xdamrtalk 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the categories for EU, NATO, etc. Meanwhile, it is important to note Wikipedia should not be western-centric. E.g., NAFTA and OAS are not well known outside the western hemisphere. Passer-by 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep either way redirect. Passer-by 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, keep ASEAN use the full name as a redirect. 132.205.44.134 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
anonymous !votes are not normally permitted. anthonycfc [talk] 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous votes are permitted, although they (as indeed can 'logged-in' votes) may be discounted by the closing admin if circumstances dictate. cf WP:CFD#Users without accounts and users with new accounts. Strikethrough removed.
Xdamrtalk 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose, keep ASEAN. Does a person some Romania knows what "ASEAN" is? --Howard the Duck 09:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. It is an acronym that is not well know. Vegaswikian 01:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wilderness Areas of Georgia[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. anthonycfc [talk] 06:39, 11 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:SYN 907[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:SYN 907 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Local radio station with 3 articles in two categories. Also delete Category:SYN Presenters. Vegaswikian 08:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Edmonton's Baseball History[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Edmonton's Baseball History to Category:Baseball in Edmonton, category description now at Baseball in Edmonton. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edmonton's Baseball History (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems to be an article more than a category. Perhaps move the text to its own article and rename the category Category:Baseball in Edmonton. Djsasso 05:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move text to Baseball in Edmonton and rename category as Category:Baseball in Edmonton - This is the case of an article written in category space. The text should be moved to an appropriate article. Although no equivalent baseball categories can be found for other Canadian cities (although several "sports in city" categories do exist), this subdivision makes sense, and the category should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 10:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and rename per nom and Dr. Submillimeter. Suggested naming convention is the best option. Resolute 14:25, 6 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Tokyo-area station 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was up-merge each stations category to its line category. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stations of Negishi Line to Category:Negishi Line
Category:Stations of Ome Line to Category:Ome Line
Category:Stations of Sagami Line to Category:Sagami Line
Category:Stations of Saikyo Line to Category:Saikyo Line
Category:Stations of Sobu Main Line to Category:Sobu Main Line
Category:Stations of Jōban Line to Category:Jōban Line
Category:Stations of Joetsu Shinkansen to Category:Joetsu Shinkansen
Category:Stations of Keihin-Tōhoku Line to Category:Keihin-Tōhoku Line
Category:Stations of Keiyo Line to Category:Keiyo Line
Category:Stations of Nambu Line to Category:Nambu Line
Category:Stations of Narita Line to Category:Narita Line
Category:Stations of Shonan Shinjuku Line to Category:Shonan Shinjuku Line
Category:Stations of Sotobo Line　to Category:Sotobo Line
Category:Stations of Takasaki Line　to Category:Takasaki Line
Category:Stations of Tōhoku Main Line　to Category:Tōhoku Main Line
Category:Stations of Tōkaidō Main Line　to Category:Tōkaidō Main Line
Category:Stations of Yamanote Line　to Category:Yamanote Line
Category:Stations of Yokohama Line　to Category:Yokohama Line
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scottish Americans[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Scottish-Americans, obviously a redirect is needed here, category:American people by ethnic or national origin is inconsistant. -- Prove It (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have made the redirect. Nothing more needs to be done. I think this is best to leave redirected instead of redlinked, since it's probably a common mistake (if it can even be called a "mistake") — coelacan — 03:05, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sculptors who exhibited at the 3rd Sculpture International[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this seems like performers by performance to me. Do you agree? -- Prove It (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Categorizing sculptors by every exhibition that they appear in will be infeasible; the large lists of categories will be difficult to read and use. Dr. Submillimeter 10:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with above. -- P199 17:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above. This would work as a list in an article but not as a category tag on every artist article who appeared. Dugwiki 17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 06:59, 7 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Museums in England[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all into Category:Museums in England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Category:Museums in England. Note all three of these contain the same two museums. -- Prove It (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all The visitor attractions categories provide sufficient breakdown at a local level within England. Haddiscoe 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all for the reason above. It isn't on my watchlist, but I vote nevertheless. TheBlazikenMaster 21:41, 6 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Medieval and Renaissance hill towns in Italy[edit]

Deletion of this category was an act of vandalism. Nothing was posted regarding this so-called merge; __ MGerety

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both. >Radiant< 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Italian hilltowns, see also discussion of January 28th. Stub article in category space. -- Prove It (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Keep as is. This category has factual and historical merit and very specific criteria for inclusion. MGerety

  • DO NOT MERGE, RETAIN MGerety is right. In fact, the category Hilltowns in Italy was improperly substituted for Italian Hilltowns after a finding of no consesus. Medieval and Renaissance hill towns in Italy are important in Italy's. SilviaManno 12:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Silvia Manno[reply]
  • DO NOT MERGE, RETAIN Just to repeat my above comment now that I myself have been undeleted. Also why wasn't this original merege proposal posted at the category itself? Many a PhD thesis has been written on the subject of these townsm the communities that inhabited them down to the construction tecniques used, MGerety 13:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)MGerety[reply]

Category:Tuskegee Institute alumni[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tuskegee University alumni, Tuskegee Institute is a redirect to Tuskegee University. -- Prove It (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Louisiana counties[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: redirect. >Radiant< 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect into Category:Louisiana parishes, convention of Louisiana. -- Prove It (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/redirect per nom. This is a correct distinction of names. Hmains 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect is fine, but I think complete Deletion of the category is better.Speaking as a lifelong resident of Louisiana, since my state doesn't have counties - Parishes instead - calling them counties is misleading and inaccurrate. I have felt the Wiki should always strive for accurracy and characterizing Louisiana's parishes as counties doesn't accomplish that.--Avazina 05:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Avazina. Louisiana has no counties. Dating back to its Napoleonic history, it has parishes. Doczilla 10:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of these articles are already in Category:Louisiana parishes, there is nothing to merge. Not sure what purpose a redirect on a category would serve. Resolute 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. It helps people find what they are looking for. 2. It prevents someone else from recreating this "missing" category. -- Prove It (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Many people are unaware of Louisiana's unconventional naming scheme and the couty construction is a likely possible search term. Otto4711 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect what Otto said - it's a likely search term. Jwillbur 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, okay, redirect per Otto. Good point about the search term. Doczilla 06:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Otto. Even if you know that LA has parishes, and that parishes are an administrative region of some sort, you may not know that they are equivalent to counties, or that LA doesn't have counties. I didn't. Xtifr tälk 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The culprit is Template:Infobox U.S. County, which automatically applies [[Category:{{{state}}} counties]]; the same problem is present with the Alaskan borough articles. This of course means that the categories can't be removed from the articles without changing the template to exclude Alaska and Louisiana from the category tagging (which I don't yet know how to do), or removing the template entirely. I left a message about this problem on the template talk page. Seriously, when has categorization-by-template not been more trouble than it's worth? Postdlf 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Category redirect to parishes... re this talk, this is good place for first official use. // FrankB 22:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Fictional Americans by place subcategories[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Fictional characters from…. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). 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_March_6&oldid=1088721602"