Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 17 May 19 >

May 18[edit]

Category:Ethnographic villages in Lithuania[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. Conscious 05:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnographic villages in Lithuania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I asked a question about this on its talk page 8 months ago, but no-one has responded. "Ethnographic village" is not exactly everyday English. It may be a literal translation of a relatively common phrase in another language, but I think the well established category Category:Open air museums covers the single article perfectly well, in conjunction with Category:Museums in Lithuania. Greg Grahame 23:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I have tried to explain this to you in Talk:Kapiniškės when you asked 8 months ago. --Lysytalk 22:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename according to Category:Open air museums current structure. The terms "skansen" and/or "ethnographic village" are quite used in the region while the "open air museum" is not but it is better to be consistent. Pavel Vozenilek 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Pavel V. Johnbod 01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Open air museums in Lithuania. Annandale 11:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Open air museums in Lithuania, for consistency. "Ethnographic villages" is not a phrase which can usefully be used in English without a lot of explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No, no, please, this is something very different and should not be confused with open air museums. The concept is rather unique for Lithuania. There are open-air museums in Lithuania, like Rumšiškės, but they are not ethnographic villages and vice versa. Maybe someone could write an Ethnographic village article, which would explain the concept and would also end the confusion. --Lysytalk 20:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ethnographic museum rather fits into subcategory of open air museums, alhough ethnographic villages are not exactly museums, these ar villages people are still living in an agelog traditional housing on and keeping traditional crafts.--Lokyz 20:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lysy. eLNuko 06:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "villages people are still living in an agelog traditional housing" may be unusual in post-Soviet countries, but in much of the world that designation applies to the majority of villages. Hence they are not unique to Lithuania, and not really worth categorising. Mowsbury 10:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least do not rename to "open air museums" 'cause they are not museums at all. They are a kind of landmark - interesting places to visit, that have historical, ethnographic, architectual value, but they are real villages with real people living in them (who are quite annoyed sometimes by all those visitors). So to say it's an open air museum would be like to say that Central Park in New York City is a forest. Renata 13:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lysy, Renata and others.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a meaningful concept outside the ex-Soviet bloc. It's list material at best. 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
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:Electronic (band)[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. --Xdamrtalk 17:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electronic (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Delete Superfluous eponymous category. As the current state of the category amply demonstrates, the navigation box does the job. Pascal.Tesson 23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too narrow a category, not notable enough band. This band isn't mentioned in the lead for the Johnny Marr article, and I'm not convinced it would be an appropriate category to apply to Johnny Marr. While there are multiple album articles that could go in this category, I do not feel that there enough to really fill it out. The infobox is good enough, no need for this category.-Andrew c 04:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an eponymous category which is not required for the material that it does or might contain. The navtemplate is sufficient, and any articles on albums or songs should be in appropriate subcats of the Album by artist and Song by artist trees. Otto4711 20:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles needing original script[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 Merge to Category:Articles needing non-English script or text. --Xdamrtalk 18:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles needing original script to Category:Articles needing non-English script or text
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:Lacking non-English text[edit]

Category:Lacking non-English text to Category:Articles needing non-English script or text
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 merge and rename/merge subcategories. Conscious 05:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot didn't pick that up, I am putting that in manually. Chris 04:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added Category:Articles needing non-English script or text to all templates, the category only showed up on about half, I have no idea why. Chris 05:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chris has modified the {{Cyrillic}} template to have parameters for the various languages using the alphabet. A similar idea seems good for Arabic (to include Persian, Urdu, etc.) and Chinese (to include Japanese kanji, Korean hanja, etc.); perhaps we should add a Roman template that would include Sweidsh, Maltese, and others that don't seem to be here. Rigadoun (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all - I kept wondering why there were two nearly identical categories of this nature for Chinese.--Danaman5 02:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/merge all. But editorial categories such as these should only be used on talk pages. Honbicot 02:05, 26 May 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.
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 all three. Conscious 05:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Music festivals in Wales[edit]

Category: Music festivals in Wales

Propose merge back to Category:British music festivals
Nominator's Rationale: Why subdivide the “Category:British music festivals"? Is there any precedent for this elsewhere, even for federal states such a Germany? 81.129.16.13 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The number of precedents for subdividing UK categories must run well into 4 figures. Greg Grahame 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per numerous precedents categorising Scottish things as Scottish, and Welsh things as Welsh. Also, categorising the Eisteddfod as "British" would go down like a lead balloon with participants there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music festivals in England[edit]

Propose merge Category:Music festivals in England back to Category:British music festivals
Nominator's Rationale: Why subdivide the “Category:British music festivals"? Is there any precedent for this elsewhere, even for federal states such a Germany? 81.129.16.13 22:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The number of precedents for subdividing UK categories must run well into 4 figures. Greg Grahame 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per numerous precedents categorising Scottish things as Scottish, and Welsh things as Welsh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Music festivals in Scotland[edit]

Propose merge Category: Music festivals in Scotland back to Category:British music festivals
Nominator's Rationale: Why subdivide the “Category:British music festivals"? Is there any precedent for this elsewhere, even for federal states such a Germany? 81.129.16.13 22:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and Category:Music venues in Scotland. I note the anon IP of the nominator; is this perhaps a troll? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 19 May 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:Bands Whose Names Have Animals in Them[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. — CharlotteWebb 01:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bands Whose Names Have Animals in Them (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, Indiscriminate categorization scheme. shotwell 21:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What do White Snake, The Monkees and The Chipmunks have in common? Not much.... Dugwiki 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as categorization by non-distinguishing feature. Wouldn't mind a list article though. -- Prove It (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --GreenJoe 23:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sure hope nobody tries to listify this. Pascal.Tesson 23:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least it's amusing, which puts it way ahead of most bad categories. I almost hate to have to say delete. Xtifr tälk 03:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Rid-goddamn-diculous. How do these categories even see the light of day?! -- Reaper X 04:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Annandale 11:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete - Stuff like this should be speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC. !!!!
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:1948 in Scotland[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. Bad faith POV nomination. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge with 1948
Nominator's Rationale: Otherwise it is all just going to get ridiculous. Are we going to have “Category:1948 in Picardy”, “Category:1948 in Schleswig-Holstein”, “Category:1948 in Orange Free State” ? Where would it all end? 81.129.16.13 21:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose part of a larger scheme, and Scotland's long history warrants it more than say Shcleswig-Holstein. Tim! 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also please tag the category with {{subst:Cfd}} if you wish for this nomination to proceed. Tim! 22:03, 18 May 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:1946 in Scotland[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. Bad faith POV nomination. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge with 1946
Nominator's Rationale: Otherwise it is all just going to get ridiculous. Are we going to have “Category:1946 in Picardy”, “Category:1946 in Schleswig-Holstein”, “Category:1946 in Orange Free State” ? Where would it all end? 81.129.16.13 21:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose part of a larger scheme, and Scotland's long history warrants it more than say Shcleswig-Holstein. Tim! 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also please tag the category with {{subst:Cfd}} if you wish for this nomination to proceed. Tim! 22:03, 18 May 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:1947 in Scotland[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. Bad faith POV nomination. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge with 1947
Nominator's Rationale: Otherwise it is all just going to get ridiculous. Are we going to have “Category:1947 in Picardy”, “Category:1947 in Schleswig-Holstein”, “Category:1947 in Orange Free State” ? Where would it all end? 81.129.16.13 21:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose part of a larger scheme, and Scotland's long history warrants it more than say Shcleswig-Holstein. Tim! 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also please tag the category with {{subst:Cfd}} if you wish for this nomination to proceed. Tim! 22:03, 18 May 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:Roman multiple people[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Ancient Roman multiple people. --Xdamrtalk 18:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman multiple people to Category:Ancient Roman multiple people
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for clarity. Honbicot 21:40, 18 May 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:Royal ranks and titles[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Royal titles. --Xdamrtalk 18:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Royal ranks and titles to Category:Royal titles
Nominator's Rationale: Rename I created this category. "Ranks" is unnecessary, and is not used in the related categories. RegRCN 21:20, 18 May 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:Music Video-Promotional screenshots[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Screenshots of music videos. --Xdamrtalk 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Music Video-Promotional screenshots to Category:Screenshots of music videos
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to bring into line with the other subcategories of Category:Fair use screenshots. Also, the word "promotional" is redundant. Extraordinary Machine 21:15, 18 May 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:Influences on Sigmund Freud[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Influences on Sigmund Freud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category was created by same user as Category:Critics of Freud and I find it equally redundant as the best place to look for these entries would be the article on Freud, just as the is the case with every other biographical Wikipedia article. meco 21:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:Critics of Freud nominated for deletion below. __meco 21:12, 18 May 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:Secondary schools by country[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Secondary schools by country to Category:High schools and secondary schools by country
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. Conscious 07:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as follow up the nomination below. If this is implemented, the national high school categories should be moved to the renamed category. Honbicot 21:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what about middle schools? 132.205.44.134 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this one of those categories best left as is since the usage is really more of a local issue? Yes, there may be a need for an umbrella category but I'm not sure what a good name would be. Vegaswikian 22:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and leave the categories for individual countries where they are. Greg Grahame 00:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Annandale 11:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and merge but the category should be renamed "Secondary school and high school by country" as secondary school is the more globally recognised term. At the same time many of the sub-categories really should be re-named as the term high school is not appropriate for most countries outside of North America and especially for schools in Europe and Africa (eg, Germany, Ghana, etc). French schools are currently in two categories: High schools in France and Secondary schools in France. They should be moved into one category called Secondary schools in France.
  • Rename/Merge This is a more general name and will cause much less argument for merging most secondary/high school categories into this one. Adam McCormick 04:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't the more sensible thing to do would be to have the various categories Category:High schools, Category:Middle schools etc listed as sub categories of Category:Secondary schools? That is, organize Category:Secondary schools by both location and type of school? Here's an example:
Notice that you get down to the same cat by following either route, and that most of these categories and structure already exists. Instead of merging an enormous amount of stuff, this could be done mainly by adding category links to existing categories. Only a few categories would have to be created. This seems to me to be both a smaller job, and a smarter job--it makes more sense navigationally, actually follows what secondary school means, and prehaps most importantly this structure has enormous flexibility in terms of smaller categories for specific areas being named what is appropriate for them, and still makes those categories easily findable with only generic knowledge. But certainly, the proposed merge is inappropriate--secondary schools are more than just high schools, and the merge proposal on the table ignores this. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:49, May 21 2007
  • Support per nom The alternative proposal would be a nightmare where one didn't know what the local terminology happened to be - and would probably be misapplied half the time in any case. Nathanian 20:04, 23 May 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:High schools[edit]

Category:High schools to Category:High schools and secondary schools
Category:Secondary schools to Category:High schools and secondary schools
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 merge. Conscious 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussion at Feb 5: Merge Category:secondary schools with Category:high schools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Middle schools - isn't this a type of secondary school, between high school and primary school? 132.205.44.134 21:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Middle schools are not secondary schools imo. Greg Grahame 00:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The two terms cover the same range of meanings; the precise meaning varies from country to country, but there is no clear distinction which justifies separating the two. Where a particular nations exclusively uses the term high school, the term can be used for that country's category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Annandale 11:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The new category should be named "Secondary school and high school by country" as secondary school is the more globally recognised term. The vast majority of the high school country categories have been inappropiately named. The categories for Ethiopia, Germany, Ghana, Norway, and Pakistan, and possibly a few other countries as well, should all be re-named Secondary schools in... rather than High schools in ... French schools are currently split between high schools and secondary schools and should all be moved into one category: Secondary schools in France. Dahliarose 10:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Secondary schools contains a list of various types of secondary schools, including, btw, high schools, middle schools and junior highs. Wouldn't therefore the more sensible thing to do would be to have the various categories Category:High schools, Category:Middle schools etc listed as sub categories of Category:Secondary schools? That is, organize Category:Secondary schools by both location and type of school? Miss Mondegreen talk  08:39, May 21 2007
  • Support per nom The alternative proposal would be a nightmare where one didn't know what the local terminology happened to be - and would probably be misapplied half the time in any case. Nathanian 20:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Yes, I know this is late in the game, we we really need to step back and look at the main article. If the main article is secondary schools and High schools is a type of secondary school along with many others then the category should support that. If the main article is wrong then it should be corrected. I suspect that a deletion review of a merger would send it right back here. Maybe if would be best to close this and reopen the discussion in terms of primary schools, secondary schools and tertiary schools which are the three broadly recognized groupings for schools. Vegaswikian 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main article is in fact Secondary education. This article, along with High school and Secondary school are currently the articles of the week in Wikiproject Schools. These articles all need a lot of attention. High school seems to be the term used in North America whereas the rest of the world uses the term secondary school. I suspect there has to be a compromise. Dahliarose 23:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you look at my comment in the prior category (scroll up) and comment on it please? I'm very confused by your statement. Either secondary and high are the only two names for seconday schools, in which case that main article needs some work, or the main article is correct. If it's the latter, why on earth would we do this? Miss Mondegreen talk  02:15, May 24 2007 (UTC)
      • I think there's a confusion between categories and articles. I was talking about articles and you were referring to categories. Secondary school is both an article and a category. Secondary school is currently the parent category. What has happened is that two sub-categories have developed independently: 'secondary schools by country' and 'high schools'. Both provide lists of secondary/high schools by country. These two categories should clearly be merged. It's just a question of how the combined category should be named. I'm not sure that high school is necessarily a type of secondary school. In America high school seems to be synonymous with secondary school, but this is not the case in other countries. In the UK some schools are called high schools but the name does not give any indication as to the type of school. Such a school could be a grammar school, a comprehensive school or even a fee-paying private school. High school would be a completely inappropriate category for UK schools. If you look at the articles on Secondary education and Secondary school you will see that there are major differences in the terminology used throughout the world. Dahliarose 10:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see what you mean. I think another issue might be that secondary school is that last level of mandatory schooling, right? Well depending on where you are in the U.S., that's going to differ. Also, 7-12s are not always called high schools...that's why I'd merge based on on above. So that people could find a school based on both location and type of school, middle schools, lysees, etc... It would also probably prevent a lot of dupe cating... Lysees are either dupe cated now, or are just missing from secondary education... What do you think about my proposal? It might need the details working out, but structurally, wouldn't that make more sense? Miss Mondegreen talk  18:51, May 24 2007 (UTC)
          • The school categories are probably a subject for wider debate. A lot of the categories seem to be in a complete mess. There is an existing parent category Category:Schools which leads into the categories of schools by country. These are probably the most useful school categories. It gets very complicated if you start categorising by type of school as the terminology varies so much from one country to the next. In Germany for instance there is essentially a tripartite system consisting of Gymansiums, Gesamtschule and Realschule. Bizaarrely someone has added a category 'high schools in Germany' which makes no sense whatsoever. There are many countries with Gymnasiums, so you could have a category Gymnasiums by country. However, I'm not sure if the other German school types exist elsewhere so you wouldn't have a category for Realschule by country. Lycees are only one type of school in France. You could have a category for lycees in France, under secondary schools in France, but there is probably no need for a category for lycees by country as I don't think they exist elsewhere. Dahliarose 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • While it's true that lycees are probably most prominent in Frace, they exist all over the world. This is what I mean---this sort of merge and renaming seems like it would be disasterous for this category, a category that's already badly organized. This renaming seems like it would make the term "secondary school" synonymous with "high schhool" and vice versa and that's just not accurate. It would also leave the categorying of other types of seconday schools a mess. High schools are, agreeably a type of seconday school (especially as what is meant by both terms differs depending on where you are in the world). So why not just make high schools a subcat of secondary schools? Also, just one more comment--this merge seems to be very American-centric and I think that's not only bad theoritically I think in this case I think it would havea very high chance of causing problems for articles on schools not located in the us.
  • Support merge The subcategories are all for the last level of compulsory schooling and they should all be in the same place. "High"/"Secondary" is a false distinction, despite all the variations in meaning and terminology around the world. Ravenhurst 01:52, 25 May 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:Emacs users[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. — CharlotteWebb 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emacs users (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Even as a user category, I would find this to be of dubious value. But as a category for biographies, this is useless and beyond geeky. It's not a defining characteristic and it's not like we really want to have a category for vi users, WinEdt users and whatnot. Pascal.Tesson 20:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Emacs isn't an editor, it's a religion! See Church of Emacs. M-X all-hail-emacs! Those who propose to delete this category shall be cast into the fiery depths of...ack, sorry, got carried away for a second there. Yeah, delete, whatever. :) Xtifr tälk 04:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely, delete with extreme prejudice. I can't believe someone thought this cat was actually a good idea. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The category creator argue that it is an important property of Emacs that Donald Knuth uses it. I disagree, but even if it is, it is certainly not an important property of Knuth that he uses Emacs. So it shouldn't be a category. If someone want a "List of prominent Emacs users" listing people like Knuth, I wouldn't oppose that (or care either way). But keep Emacs out of Knuth's page.--Per Abrahamsen 07:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Doczilla 06:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. GreenJoe 18:43, 21 May 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:Critics of Freud[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of Freud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This category seems artificial to me. On the category talk page I have compared it with other "Critics of" categories, and there is also discussion there with User:ACEOREVIVED who created and defends the category. I have problems verifying the majority of current entries as actually critics of Freud (from what the Wikipedia articles state). My main objection, however, is that I believe using the existing section in the Sigmund Freud article describing criticism serves this purpose better. meco 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:Influences on Sigmund Freud nominated for deletion above. __meco 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour of retention of this category, as the people on the list were critics of Freud, and I feel this category could help some one who wished to do research into Freud and his critics. At the very least, I do wish people who have nominated this category for deletion would have read books such as Eysenck, H.J. and Wilson, G.D. (1973). The Experimental Study of Freudian Theories. London. Methuen. ACEOREVIVED 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OC; not a defining characteristic. -- Visviva 05:49, 23 May 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:Ministers of the Universal Life Church[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< 09:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ministers of the Universal Life Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, Universal Life Church is a mail-order ministry who ordains anyone who asks and pays the fee. None of the people who are categorized here are famous for their "ministry", it's trivial and non-defining. We have a list List of Ministers of the Universal Life Church, this cat just contributes to category clutter. Carlossuarez46 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While no one may be notable for their ministry, they are notable and they are ordained by the ULC. Other churches have similar categories. This one is perfectly valid. --GreenJoe 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The parallel is inapt. Anyone can be a minister of this church by sending in the $ or having someone send it in for you, like someone did for Madalyn Murray O'Hair, America's best known atheist campaigner (and categorized in this category). This category is a subcategory of Category:Ministers of religion, which in turn is a subcat of Category:Religious leaders and Category:Religious workers; if the contention is that Tony Danza, Johnny Carson and other mail-order ministers are comparable in "religious work" or "religious leadership" to Billy Graham, Martin Luther, and Jerry Falwell would indicate that the whole system of religious leaders is a meaningless collection of unrelated people. I think that not to be the case, but this is a trivial basis of categorization, much like Category:people who have sent away money so they can be called reverend or had someone else send in money to make them a reverend which is really what this is equivalent to. This also has WP:BLP issues up the wazooey; I could make the Pope, George Bush, Osama bin Ladin a minister, so we'll remove their prior religious categories and toss them in here? Carlossuarez46 22:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I'm aware, the ULC doesn't ordain anyone who doesn't request it, and it's free. So The $ argument is out. Each of them like Jeff Probst requested it for one reason or another. Who are you to say their ministry isn't as valid as that if Billy Graham? Everyone has the right to preach or not preach in their own way. GreenJoe 23:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the same time, we should CFD Category:Unitarian_Universalists under your argument, because anyone can be a UU. GreenJoe 23:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Check their website and navigate to the products, ordination kit: it's free for a $10 donation. Everyone has the right to preach, but if their preaching is not notable, categorization based on it is trivial. We all have the right to sleep on our backs, sides, stomachs, or whathaveyou, shall we begin categorizing on that basis too -- it's our right! Carlossuarez46 01:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge Keep this entry and delete [[1]] since this catagory existed first. Also, you are not allowed to ordain others without thier permission. http://ulchq.com/ordination.htm "Do not submit someone for ordination without their permission and approval." JDBlues 00:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod 21:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your assumptions are wrong. The ULC doesn't ordain anyone who doesn't request it, and it's free. GreenJoe 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to say that the editors above (whom I respect deeply) are simply wrong. The ULC does not require that people send in money, and I do not believe they ordain those who do not request it. I think this categorization is perfectly valid. ULC is a notable organization. As long as we have a citation in the actual biographical articles in question verifying that the subject were ordained, I think this categorization is fine. While some people may think that this category is trivial because it is so 'easy' to become ordained, but it isn't our place as wikipedians to judge others' religion. so Keep-Andrew c 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Andrew C, you may be right that money is not required, but the article at Universal Life Curch says "The organization states that anyone can become a minister immediately, without having to go through the pre-ordination process required by other religious faiths". Whether that is a good or bad thing is (as you rightly say) a POV issue, but the fact that anyone can obtain this label on request means that it should not be regarded as a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 21 May 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:Pampanga Festivals[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Festivals in Pampanga. --Xdamrtalk 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pampanga Festivals to Category:Festivals in Pampanga
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention. LukeHoC 17:09, 18 May 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:Philippine Festivals[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Festivals in the Philippines. --Xdamrtalk

Propose renaming Category:Philippine Festivals to Category:Festivals in the Philippines
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention. LukeHoC 17:08, 18 May 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:French Colonial Governors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:French colonial governors and administrators. --Xdamrtalk 18:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:French Colonial Governors to Category:French colonial governors and administrators
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Speedy + addition of administrators (as in Category:British colonial governors and administrators and Category:Dutch colonial governors and administrators) because there were some notable administrators below governor level. Alex Middleton 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Annandale 11:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: I agree that category names need to be consistent. +A.0u 02:04, 22 May 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:Memon 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Memon people. --Xdamrtalk 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Memon Personalities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Memon people, because it is a category for people. -- Prove It (talk) 16:01, 18 May 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:Siniestro Sin[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. --Xdamrtalk 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Siniestro Sin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, only one member, also being considered for deletion. -- Prove It (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 22:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 22:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD C1. It's been empty four days now. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 12:40, 23 May 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:Songs by songwriter[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 (no rename). After Midnight 0001 04:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs by songwriter to Category:Songs by musicwriter
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category was previously listed as "Songs by composer" and was moved to this title three days ago. But "songwriters" include lyricists and there is a separate category, "Songs by lyricist." BRG 14:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I'm dubious that it is correct that most music & lyrics are by the same people - that really only became typical with Dylan & Lennon/McCartney. I agree this needs wide discussion. The nomination for the previous discussion envisaged possibly 3 categories: composers, lyricists & songwriters who did both (at least sometimes). "Composer" seems preferable to "musicwriter"Johnbod 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer "musicwriter" to "composer" but could accept either; to me, however, "composer" is generally associated with classical music. -- BRG 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Mike Selinker is totally unfamiliar with the kind of music I'm most familiar with. Very few people wrote both lyrics and music to the Traditional Pop and Tin Pan Alley songs I concern myself with. Cole Porter and Irving Berlin were about the only ones. -- BRG 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, BRG, I'm quite familiar with that type of music. I'm also familiar with the types of music that have been written in the last 40 years, and in that period of time, the singer-songwriter has become the dominant songwriter type. I'm suggesting that it's no longer an important distinction what part of the songwriting process you participated in, only that you did. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker 03:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so familiar with it, how could you say that "most songs have music and lyrics by the same person"? Most songs were not written in the past 40 years! -- BRG 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "musicwriter" is an awkward and non-standard term. We have no article at Musicwriter, and google turns up very few hits aside from brand-names and obvious typos. And we already have a consensus against "composer". I wouldn't object to doing something, but not if it involves mangling the language! I think one possible solution might be to make Category:Songs by lyricist into a subcat of this. That would make this the broader category which would include lyricists while still keeping them separate. If that doesn't satisfy everyone, I'm not sure what would. Xtifr tälk 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Musicwriter" is out as far as you are concerned, and "composer" is not liked. But what do you consider Sammy Fain, Richard Rodgers, etc.? They certainly are not "songwriters"; if they ever wrote a lyric in their life it was not a major part of their output. They wrote music, which was combined with someone else's lyrics. (Apparently, the reason Google turns up very few hits is that the sites seem to prefer "music writer" as two words. Would that satisfy Xtifr?) -- BRG 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, the industry and legal term is still "composer". The objections in the previous discussion were as much that the composition of the category did not actually reflect the name. I don't think it can be taken as preventing the creation of a new category for composers only - rather the contrary. Johnbod 19:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had not seen the earlier (May 7) discussion until today. Based on your comment, can we reverse the decision that got rid of the "Songs by composer" category, and simply move those categories that really belonged in a "Songs by songwriter" category into that one? Then "Songs by composer" and "Songs by lyricist" could be subcategories of "Songs by songwriter," while those categories that reference people who write complete songs (music and lyrics both) could be left directly under "Songs by songwriter"? -- BRG 17:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way to proceed would be to withdraw this nomination (and the one from a couple of days ago), then set up a new "Songs by composer" and populate that from the songwriters. The previous discussion did not address the hierarchy among them; it could be as you describe, or the three together on the same level under category:songs. But all the categories, and the parent, should have explanations/definitions pointing to the others. Johnbod 18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a "Songs by composer" category, and someone (by virtue of a bot, I think) moved all the items that had been there into "Songs by songwriter." This is a job which, for me, would entail a lot of time and effort (I have to use public computers, so I could not do a bot) only to restore a situation which already existed a few weeks ago. And someone might just undo all my painful effort, pointing to the result of the earlier vote. So we really need a formal decision to reverse the vote on the May 7 proposal (which by your comment you ought to agree to). -- BRG 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) "Songs by composer" was deleted by consensus agreement; if you want to challenge that decision, you need to visit deletion review (WP:DRV). However, I should point out that the issues being raised here were already discussed at that previous debate, and the consensus was that songwriters are people who write lyrics, music or both. The claim that people who only write music, not lyrics, are not songwriters does not seem to have great currency. (I, for example, disagree, and think Scott Joplin can quite reasonably be described as a songwriter. He's even a Songwriters Hall of Fame inductee!) If you think you can back up that claim in a way that will convince people, though, your first step should be DRV. Xtifr tälk 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was renamed by the last discussion, not deleted. I don't agree with your reading of that discussion - I can't see any editor who directly addressed the 3-way question in a comment, nor did the closer, & a 3 way split was mentioned in the nomination, which succeeded. I see no obstacle to setting up a new composer only category. Johnbod 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My claim is not that lyricists or composers/musicwriters are not songwriters, but that in the category tree it is not sensible to group them together. When a song is categorized, it should be listed under its lyricist(s) and its composer(s), and those in turn are under "Songs by lyricist" and "Songs by composer." If, in turn, those categories are subsumed under "Songs by songwriter," this would not be objected to by me. It's a bit like listing all the presidents of the United States under "politicians." They are much better categorized as "Presidents of the United States," then those in turn as "American politicians," and then those as "Politicians by country."
In addition, the category was not deleted, but renamed. So deletion review (WP:DRV) is not the right place to go. -- BRG 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is the procedure to reconsider a rename? Nobody has made a single comment since my May 21 note? -- BRG 14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review covers all decisions made here. You could go that route, or (imho) the one I suggested earlier. You are are moving perhaps ? 60 categories, changing one word in each I think. Frankly it will be less hassle, and a bot will not be able (I think) to distinguish what goes where (what stays in songwriters & what goes to composers) if & when 3 categories are set up. Johnbod 15:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't see the difference between what you suggested and what I just proposed. You said "the way to proceed would be to withdraw this nomination (and the one from a couple of days ago), then set up a new 'Songs by composer' and populate that from the songwriters." To withdraw the one from a couple of days ago, you would need to reverse it, as it's already been acted upon. So what is the difference? -- BRG 19:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the abortive one here - just for tidyness. Johnbod 22:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongly oppose, awkward nonstandard per Xtifr. Chris 18:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Musicwriter" is not a standard English word, so it shouldn't be used, whatever the merits of Category:Songs by musicwriter might be if there was such a word. Ravenhurst 01:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition (by you and others) seems to be exclusively to the use of the term "musicwriter." Would you be willing to discuss a proposal to reconsider the original decision to change "Songs by composer" to "Songs by songwriter"? That is the real issue; while I prefer "musicwriter" because "composer" suggests classical music, the articles on (e. g.) Richard Rodgers and Sammy Fain call them composers, so I can live with that term. Somehow, we have gotten all tied up in the discussion of the secondary issue, and not addressed the real point I was trying to make, which is that categories should be (per Wikipedia policy) as narrow as possible, and so "songwriters" is not the proper category referencing people who were purely writers of music. -- BRG 17:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons I have given above.Johnbod 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is your opposition simply to the term "musicwriter"? You seem to be in sympathy to what I'm trying to do-- see my comment above to Ravenhurst. -- BRG 17:46, 26 May 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:Envelopes[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. Conscious 07:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Envelopes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not seem necessary since category:Stationery is not too big. Out of the four articles currently in the cat, one is about an inventor and one about a math problem. Neither of them are envelopes! Pascal.Tesson 14:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Johnbod 14:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, good grief. Envelopes? Do we need a category for every household item? Delete per nom. Doczilla 15:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep All four articles are highly relevant, and Category:Stationery and its subcategories contain hundreds of articles. Both parent and child have potential for growth. Honbicot 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Honbicot. --GreenJoe 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, second good grief by Doczilla. Chris 22:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As subdivision of a large category. Greg Grahame 00:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the four articles, one is improper to the category, and one is for the inventor of the windowed envelope (and is too trivial to warrant his own article-- most of the article is about the envelope). Then there is brown envelope, which is really two paragraphs or so out of envelope -- which happens to be the fourth article. So,what with mergers and recats, we are left with one article in the category. Mangoe 03:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Category:Brown envelopes, Category:White envelopes, Category:Wimdowed envelopes, Category:Padded envelopes, and Category:Pre-paid envelopes. Otherwise, join others in exclaiming "good God" and support upmerge, noting that there are only 4 articles in this categ and the parent categ only has 55 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The parent category has 444 articles. Following your logic, we should delete some of the subcategories of category:United States, because the parent category only has two articles right now. Annandale 11:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What was the fourth article? The instructions state clearly that articles should not be removed while the debate is in progress. Annandale 11:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One problem that we face here is making a decision on a category that is not reasonably populated. If it is empty if needs to be deleted goes the logic. In this case, the category is far from empty. Don't know why it only had 4 or 3 articles as reported above, but it now seems to contain a reasonable collection of related articles. Vegaswikian 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Attempts to pack this category with references are running into the problem most of the "articles" are actually redirects to the articles already there, or are to things that belong in other categories. Let's go through the list:
Other articles could (and should) be merged directly into envelope. There is still no good reason for this category. Mangoe 04:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speciality types of envelopes that have philatelic value are still envelopes that are notable. So why can they not be members of both categories? Vegaswikian 05:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It used not to be possible to categorize redirects, and the fact that one can now do so is a very useful enhancement. Honbicot 10:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects also show up in categories in italics. Vegaswikian 05:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as overly specific. >Radiant< 09:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful category with room for growth. Ravenhurst 01:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just noticed this discussion and Mulready stationery, is not linking here even though it was one of the primary products that created impetus for the modern day use of envelopes in from the 1840s. Some philatelic topics very specifically should be linked here as they relate directly to, or are in fact, envelopes in part if not in whole. Postal stationery is missing too and Crash cover should possibly be linked as well though Aerogram really should not be in this category. ww2censor 18:21, 27 May 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:Filipino people[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:People of the Philippines. --Xdamrtalk 18:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging Category:Filipino people to Category:People of the Philippines since both categories cover the same area, and the latter category is the best populated of the two. T@nn 14:04, 18 May 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:Russian and Soviet Screenwriters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Soviet screenwriters. Conscious 06:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Russian and Soviet screenwriters to Category:Russian screenwriters since both categories cover the same ground. T@nn 13:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 37.5% of the articles are about non-Russians, so whilst recategorisation may be in order, straight merger is not. This category also fits into Category:Cinema of the Soviet Union. I suggest renaming this to Category:Soviet screenwriters. The articles may then be double categorised to the Soviet category and the Russian category or the screenwriters category for whichever of the other 14 countries which were constituent republics of the USSR is appropriate. Honbicot 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Honbicot, though there is overlap, one is not necessarily a subset of the other, having both to do with ethnic identity and time period. Oh, and support rename to Category:Soviet screenwriters. Chris 22:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: IMHO screenwriters are best categorised by language while movies by the producing company/organisation/state. It would be better to use something as "Russian X of Soviet era" or so. Pavel Vozenilek 01:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Soviet screenwriters as per Category:Soviet actors etc. Annandale 11:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Make sure to move to correct nationality though. All my not be Russian. Bulldog123 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That overlooks the great attempts that were made in the relevant era to give primacy to the idea of a Soviet nationality. Honbicot 10:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Russia is not the Soviet Union, nor vice versa! Per Honbicot, Russia was only one of over a dozen countries in the USSR. The best solution would be Honbicot's proposal to rename this to Category:Soviet screenwriters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Soviet screenwriters as per numerous other Soviet categories. Ravenhurst 01:57, 25 May 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:Hockey grounds in Pakistan[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Field hockey venues in Pakistan. --Xdamrtalk 18:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hockey grounds in Pakistan to Category:Field hockey venues in Pakistan
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per Category:Field hockey venues. Oliver Han 11:56, 18 May 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:Prestige vehicles[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. --Xdamrtalk 18:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prestige vehicles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The "main article" for this category was deleted months ago per this AFD. The points raised in the AFD apply here as well: there is no neutral, verifiable definition of a "prestige vehicle". szyslak 09:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 10:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 15:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as subjective. -- Prove It (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Comment per nom + how do you define "prestige vehicles"?..people think of it differently so may be subject to an eternal argument between editors. R_Orange 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & per R_Orange. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Bulldog123 17:49, 19 May 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:Retro fiction anime[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. --Xdamrtalk 18:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Retro fiction anime (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This category appears to either be a neologism of some sort or else a misnamed version of the category for historical fiction anime. --tjstrf talk 07:28, 18 May 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:The Ultimate Fighter[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. Conscious 07:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Ultimate Fighter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - with the exception of the articles on the various seasons, everything in the category is an article on a person who's appeared on the show either as a fighter or a coach. This is a form of performer by performance category and is overcategorization. The articles on the show and the individual seasons are easily interlinked so the category is not needed for navigational purposes.. Otto4711 05:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move episode lists to Category:Television episodes by series, then delete The only hitch I see to deleting the category is that it would put all the individual episode lists as separate articles in the same categories, which seems a bit redundant. I'd recommend putting all the episode/season list articles into an Ultimate Fight subcategory of Category:Television episodes by series. Once that's done, then you could safely delete this eponymous category without introducing five duplicate articles to other categories. Dugwiki 15:34, 18 May 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:Visions[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. --Xdamrtalk 18:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Visions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This category was created today and is already causing edit warring on Jesus. This category is too vague, and not a defining characteristic. It is not specific to one culture or religion. It mixes religious books with people, religious figures with non-religious figures who happened to have "visions", technical and theological terms with specific stories from the Gospels. The category has no direction, isn't specific nor defined, is being used to group very different articles together, and is being added to articles that "vision" may not be the defining aspect of the article's subject. Andrew c 05:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Category is far too broad. It's potentially so enormous that it's not useful. Literally hundreds of canonized Christian saints can be included, for example, not to mention all the figures from other religions. And then there are the psychics, channelers, mediums, spiritualists, psychedelic drug users, etc., etc., etc. What organizational advantage does the category bring to these articles? TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague, useless category. Doczilla 06:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category appears too vague and encompassing to be useful. Dr. Submillimeter 07:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 10:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per all of the above. The category is too broad to form a useful grouping, because there is far too much diversity in "visions" to form a common thread. However, the article Vision (religion) could usefully be expanded with discussions of, for example, the visions of christian saints or of old-testament prophets. But there is a big difference between a properly-referenced article where these the visions are compared and contraated, and his category which just sticks the same label on them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 18 May 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:Compositions by Gioacchino Rossini[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Compositions by Gioachino Rossini. --Xdamrtalk 18:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Compositions by Gioacchino Rossini to Category:Compositions by Gioachino Rossini

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as discussed on the Opera project here modern scholars prefer Rossini's first name with only one 'c'. We use one 'c' in articles. Can we change the cat for consistency? Pls note we have just changed Category:Operas by Gioacchino Rossini to Category:Operas by Gioachino Rossini. This one should have been done at the same time. Sorry. -- Kleinzach 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy rename per nom. I think that this a borderline case wrt WP:CFD#Speedy_criteria #1, but would anyone object to a speedy rename? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, or speedy. Johnbod 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delay Rename WP:CM will have a bot tagging our project banner to articles and this category is included, so we would like it if the renaming happened after the bot has finished. Centy 02:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I wanted to contact you but 'Centy' isn't clickable. I wonder if you can get in touch? We have a lot of banner clutter now and would prefer to limit it if at all possible. Thanks & regards. -- Kleinzach 10:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, the clickable thing seems have disappeared. Anyway, the bot is running and should be finished in three or so days. So once its finished with this category, you can do the rename. Centy 10:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bot has now finished with this category. Category now free for renaming. Centy 00:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the revision logs, Centy appears to be User:User:CenturionZ 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 24 May 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:Shorty McShorts' Shorts[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. --Xdamrtalk 18:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shorty McShorts' Shorts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - following cleanup of the category, a single article and a single subcat remain, which does not require a category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 03:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. Chris 22:53, 18 May 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:Pakistani[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 Merge to Category:Pakistani people. --Xdamrtalk 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pakistani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge / Redirect into Category:Pakistani people, convention of Category:People by nationality. -- Prove It (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, removing the WMO organisation. Johnbod 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect Haddiscoe 10:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. R_Orange 16:21, 18 May 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_May_18&oldid=1138891744"