Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 23 October 25 >

October 24[edit]

Category:Canadian Football League players by position[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 all as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canadian Football League players by position to Category:Canadian football players by position
Category:Canadian Football League defensive backs → Category:Canadian football defensive backs
Category:Canadian Football League defensive linemen → Category:Canadian football defensive linemen
Category:Canadian Football League fullbacks → Category:Canadian football fullbacks
Category:Canadian Football League placekickers → Category:Canadian football placekickers
Category:Canadian Football League linebackers → Category:Canadian football linebackers
Category:Canadian Football League offensive linemen → Category:Canadian football offensive linemen
Category:Canadian Football League punters → Category:Canadian football punters
Category:Canadian Football League quarterbacks → Category:Canadian football quarterbacks
Category:Canadian Football League return specialists → Category:Canadian football return specialists
Category:Canadian Football League running backs → Category:Canadian football running backs
Category:Canadian Football League slotbacks → Category:Canadian football slotbacks
Category:Canadian Football League wide receivers → Category:Canadian football wide receivers
Nominator's rationale: Rename, should be categorized by sport, and not by league, as in Category:American football players by position, etc. I first raised this on Category talk:Canadian Football League over a year ago (and linked to the discussion from several places), and no one has disagreed (probably because I'm one of the few people working on bios of non-CFL Canadian football players and keep stumbling into this problem). Note that I first created almost all of these categories except for quarterbacks, which is the oldest one, and I probably never should have followed its scheme in creating the others in the first place. heqs ·:. 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Almost all individuals included will have played in the CFL if they meet the notability requirement, but I agree with the rename for the sake of consistency with other similar categories. And there is the theoretical possibility that someone could be notable for playing Canadian football but not in the CFL (a Canadian university player, for e.g.). Snocrates 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Note that CFL players are categorized by team, yet many of the teams pre-date the founding of the CFL in 1958 by up to 75 years. Thus there are a number of bios on players from the pre-CFL era already categorized by team, yet needing these position categories (some are already in the CFL position categories anyway, as it's a bit of a grey area). There are also a few Canadian university players kicking around in the root at Category:Canadian football players, with more to come. I am also currently preparing to initiate categorization of Canadian university players with articles by team (including those who played in the CFL, I estimate there about 300 right now). heqs ·:. 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Gotta be done for the exact reasons listed.--Mike Selinker 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as per nom. John Carter 18:07, 25 October 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.

Settlements by religious observance[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging these categories, which I believe to be overcategorising based on a trivial intersection of geopolitical status on the one hand, and religious character on the other (i.e. an entry could theoretically be written about the phenomena of Israeli localities' ir/religiosity, - maybe Religious Israeli localities - but there would not be a second entry - Religious Israeli settlements - discussing the same phenomena only in Israeli settlements).

The original discussion of these and several other categories closed with these being relisted for more discussion, and ultimately no consensus was reached. However Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel was renamed to Category:Religious Israeli communities, in part meant to widen the scope and avoid the "in Israel" discussion in order to upmerge. TewfikTalk 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep all. Religious observance (or the lack of it) is not a trivial issue for Israeli settlements. A significant proportion of settlements have been created by observant religious jews, for whom their religious faith is frequently both the prime reason for creating the settlement and the defining characteristic of the settlement once established; for all settlements, religious status is one of the most important aspects of categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS It is also important to distingish Israeli settlements from the broader concept of religious communities. There is a world of difference between a religious kibbutz in the Sharon plain and a religious outpost on a Judean hilltop, in terms of their status under international law and their position in Israeli politics and Israeli society. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a homogeneous observant/secular/mixed population has nothing to do with international law, which is roughly the same for all Israeli settlements (whose category all of these are already members of, and thus doubly categorised in). I don't understand, though, on what grounds we can say that "religious observance" or its absence is any more of a defining characteristic in one case than another, especially when entries talk about settlements founded by the "Sharon valley people", many of them kibbutzes - such a broad generalisation just seems unverifiable. Like I said above, I don't see Religious Israeli settlements surviving. TewfikTalk 03:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per BrownHairedGirl. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 07:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 07:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:BrownHairedGirl. IZAK 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tewfik. I do not see the necessity for the distinction and think that Wikipedia is vastly overcategorized. 6SJ7 15:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • unconvinced upcatting all the settlements into communities cats would definitely mean readding the 'Israeli settlements' cat into all settlements. It would also sort of eliminate a quick view of 'mixed settlements' which IMO, is significant since most settlements are homogeneously divided by religion. A broad mixed communities cat would include the hundreds of 'regular' Israeli localities. 'Communities' needs to be definied properly. While we need to add kibbutzim and moshavim, there are also other 'yishuvim kehilatiim' in the north and south that would need to be added as well. Upcatting is not the solution, otherwise, the idea needs to be developed further for it to make sense. --Shuki 22:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjust name if kept - If this category is solely about settlemeents in Israel, the category should be "Israeli settlements by religious observance". Otherwise, Moravian settlemtnsd in England (and elsewhere) and other settlements by particular religious groups are laible to be added, making the category unmanagable. Peterkingiron 23:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tewfik and 6sj7. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:55, 30 October 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:Migrants to pre-Confederation Canada[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 all. Kbdank71 16:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Migrants to pre-Confederation Canada to Category:Immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada
Category:American migrants to pre-Confederation Canada to Category:American immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada
Category:Anglo-Irish migrants to pre-Confederation Canada to Category:Anglo-Irish immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada
Category:British migrants to pre-Confederation Canada to Category:British immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada
Category:English migrants to pre-Confederation Canada to Category:English immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada
Category:English migrants to pre-Confederation Newfoundland to Category:English immigrants to pre-Confederation Newfoundland
Category:French migrants to pre-Confederation Canada to Category:French immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada
Category:French migrants to pre-Confederation Quebec to Category:French immigrants to pre-Confederation Quebec
Category:Gibraltarian migrants to pre-Confederation Canada to Category:Gibraltarian immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada
Category:Irish migrants to pre-Confederation Canada to Category:Irish immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada
Category:Migrants to pre-Confederation Newfoundland to Category:Immigrants to pre-Confederation Newfoundland
Category:Migrants to pre-Confederation Ontario to Category:Immigrants to pre-Confederation Ontario
Category:Scottish migrants to pre-Confederation Canada to Category:Scottish immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada
Category:Scottish migrants to pre-Confederation New Brunswick to Category:Scottish immigrants to pre-Confederation New Brunswick
Category:Scottish migrants to pre-Confederation Newfoundland to Category:Scottish immigrants to pre-Confederation Newfoundland
Category:Scottish migrants to pre-Confederation Nova Scotia to Category:Scottish immigrants to pre-Confederation Nova Scotia
Category:Scottish migrants to pre-Confederation Ontario to Category:Scottish immigrants to pre-Confederation Ontario
Category:Scottish migrants to pre-Confederation Quebec to Category:Scottish immigrants to pre-Confederation Quebec
Category:Swiss migrants to pre-Confederation Canada to Category:Swiss immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada
Category:Ulster-Scottish migrants to pre-Confederation Canada to Category:Ulster-Scottish immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada
Category:Ulster-Scottish migrants to pre-Confederation Newfoundland to Category:Ulster-Scottish immigrants to pre-Confederation Newfoundland
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with parent Category:Immigrants to Canada and other similar bio-immigrant categories. Snocrates 20:55, 24 October 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:American players of American football[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American players of American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian players of Canadian football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - these categories are unnecessary/redundant. This is over-categorization; the vast majority of American football players are American; the vast majority of Canadian football players are Canadian, and neither category will ever be populated properly. American players of American football are simply considered as "American football players" by most people, and Canadian players of Canadian football, while distinguished as "non-imports" (actually a somewhat complex and troublesome designation) at the professional level in the CFL, do not need to be distinguished as such here. Category:American football players by nationality and Category:American players of Canadian football already do the job of separating non-American/non-Canadian players of the respective sports. heqs ·:. 20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those discussions are not entirely relevant (I was already aware of them), as my only issue is with the two specific categories I listed above. Think about it: Category:American players of American football should have literally thousands, possibly tens of thousands of articles in it, not the hundreds it currently has. According to what we have there, for better or worse, it's basically a meaningless distinction; American football players are assumed to be "American" unless noted otherwise. The Canadian category is the same thing on a smaller scale. Unless someone is going to lead a campaign to populate this category (and keep it populated with new articles), it serves no real purpose other than as a container for the incomplete sub-cat scheme in it. heqs ·:. 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I first raised the issue of the Canadian category over a year ago (before either the American or Canadian one were created) on Category talk:Canadian Football League, and linked to the discussion in several places (ie. Talk:Canadian Football League) and had no response. heqs ·:. 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should the proper parent be for African American football players? Or American football players by state? Where should they go? It seems to me that this nomination just creates a gaping hole in an otherwise working hierarchy. It also seems to be lacking a global perspective ... everyone is assumed to be American unless we say otherwise. -- Prove It (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems to fall in with a scheme, but the scheme is best to note the exceptions not the vast majority: this will be a new cat added to 1000s of bios - and bios are where cat clutter is worst. Is anyone really going to see O.J. Simpson's bio with a cat Category:American players of American football and say "gosh what other Americans play American football" and even use the cat? It'll be so overpopulated that it won't be usable anyway. What's next Category:American people from New York and 49 others? Carlossuarez46 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. These seem to be of limited use, but I can understand the desire to have them for the sake of completeness. Usually it's a tricky business determining when one nationality is the "default" type of something, but in these cases it seems relatively obvious due to the nature of the sport in each instance being limited pretty much to one nation. (We are not assuming everybody is American/Canadian unless we say otherwise.) Snocrates 00:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed opinion). Thanks, ProveIt, I understand you better now and see that for the sake of that type of navigation (which I like doing too) a keep might be a preferable idea. I have changed my opinion on this based on ProveIt's explanation. Snocrates 21:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The notice on American football players has said for years to only categorize players by nationality if not from the United States. What would the big problem be with putting the African American football players (which I note is virtually empty considering how many there are), American football players by state etc (which btw is an incomplete and ill-fated over-categorization/category intersection) in American football players and just putting a notice on American sportspeople to "see also American football players" (where they can be found by team, position etc)? It may be a bit of a kludge, but this is an unusual situation. The bottom line is nobody needs a category to find "American players of American football". They aren't exactly hard to find as we all know. This is not all that critical a link between anything other than completism for its own sake. Btw, easy on the bold and caps... heqs ·:. 22:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ProveIt Johnbod 01:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Tanza[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. Kbdank71 16:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Tanza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People from Tanza, Cavite, to match Tanza, Cavite. -- Prove It (talk) 20:38, 24 October 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:Family Guy music[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 relisted on oct 30. Kbdank71 16:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Family Guy music to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Merge - to Category:Family Guy and Category:Television soundtracks. Small category unlikely to expand and even if it does it will still be a small category. Otto4711 18:48, 24 October 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:John Kricfalusi[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Kricfalusi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Most of the material is inappropriate person by project categorization and absent that the remaining material doesn't warrant a category. The gentleman's article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 18:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a corresponding Works of... category this might be renamed to? If not, then delete per nom. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no animated series by animator type of category structure of which I'm aware. Probably shouldn't be one for the same reasons we don't have film by actor. Otto4711 13:24, 30 October 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:Military units and formations of Soviet-German War[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 withdrawn. Kbdank71 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Military units and formations of Soviet-German War to Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet Union in World War II‎
Nominator's rationale: Merge, "Soviet-German War" is misleading phrase, and category was not well-used to begin with. Category using phrase "World War 2" is much more consistent category name, more clear, and more complete contents. Besides, it doesn not even specify which country this category is for; there is already a separate category for german units, so this category does not have a lot of applicability. Steve, Sm8900 18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Withdrawwhoops; just realized it can be used for units of that war which are neither russian nor german, as it is being used that way now. sorry. all this categorizaion can be a little complex. I apologize. If you do want to add any thoughts, please feel free. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:27, 24 October 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:1533 conflicts[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:Conflicts in 1533. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1533 conflicts to Category:Conflicts in 1533
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Convention of Category:Conflicts by year. Tim! 16:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People raised as the opposite gender[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People raised as the opposite gender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: People raised as the opposite gender to what? If it's the opposite gender to the one they identify as, then this category would include all transsexual people (and many intersex people), and those people would swamp the few non-transsexual people who would fall into this category (i.e., David Reimer). I can't see another way to define it that would be NPOV. So it's unnecessary, as we already have Category:Transgender and transsexual people. Delete. SparsityProblem 16:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the definitional problems are many with this category. Let's confine definitional problems to those categories that already address and recognize the issues. --lquilter 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The people now listed shows the impracticality of a definitionDGG (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is one of thoses cases that really cries out for a list rather than a category. Cgingold 09:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - way too vague and undefined - Alison ❤ 23:32, 25 October 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:Wheeler Basketball Stars[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wheeler Basketball Stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as both non-defining and subjective. -- Prove It (talk) 16:18, 24 October 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:1509 in architecture[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:1509 architecture. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1509 in architecture to Category:1509 architecture
Nominator's rationale: Rename, by convention of Category:Years in architecture. Tim! 16:06, 24 October 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:Romanian television channels[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. Kbdank71 16:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romanian television channels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Romanian television networks, convention of Category:Television networks by country. -- Prove It (talk) 15:55, 24 October 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:Works of art by M. C. Escher[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. Kbdank71 16:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works of art by M. C. Escher to Category:Works by M. C. Escher
Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform to Category:Works by artist or Split into appropriate subcats e.g. Category:M. C. Escher paintings, Category:M. C. Escher prints and locate in the appropriate parents. Otto4711 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as per Nom - another straightforward one just the choice of option to which I am ambivalent. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:Works by M. C. Escher; if it needs to be split later it can be. (There's, what, 2 dozen works in there now? I think that's fine without splitting. How many more will there be, anyway?) --lquilter 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - no need to split I think. In fact all or most are prints of various kinds, some with additions by hand, and the category should not really be a sub-cat of "paintings by artist". Johnbod 17:09, 25 October 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:Paintings by Giorgio de Chirico[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. Kbdank71 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Paintings by Giorgio de Chirico to Category:Giorgio de Chirico paintings
Propose renaming Category:Paintings by Max Ernst to Category:Max Ernst paintings
Propose renaming Category:Paintings by René Magritte to Category:René Magritte paintings
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to conform to the convention of the parent. Otto4711 15:40, 24 October 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:Films by writer[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:Screenplays by author. Kbdank71 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films by writer to Category:Screenplays by screenwriter
Nominator's rationale: Rename - all of the subcats use "screenplays" and not "films." I'd also like to float the idea of deleting the category with an eye to deleting the entire structure. The articles aren't about the screenplays; they're about the films. Tagging film articles with other creative people beyond the director invites the creation of Category:Films by cinematographer, Category:Films by costume designer, etc. with no neutral-POV delineation as to whose contribution is important enough to warrant categorization. Otto4711 15:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but to Category:Screenplays by author for general consistency of naming. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - on the other topic I would currently vote to keep as is. I see screenwriter as a little different to the other contributors (often the the prime adaptation input) - however I have see your point. I would keep as is unless the problem arrived as you describe. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, wait You mentioned that the articles are about the movie not the screenplay, so why are you doing this? It wouldn't make sense to me that there is a misleading category. TheBlazikenMaster 18:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rename proposal is because every one of the subcategories are in the Screenplays by format. If you prefer Films written by and want to nominate all the subcats, feel free. Otto4711 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think that one makes sense, screenplays are the focus and the film article is the resultant work. It is difficult in many cases to write about the screen plays in isolation from the film itself, normally because the screenplay in unavailable for general reading or even independent critical review. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I knew this had come up before. I see there that I also raised the objection on the basis of screenplays often having multiple credited authors, which could lead to the same film article having multiple Screenplay by categories and leading to category clutter. I still find that to be a concern. Otto4711 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have to say that I agree with the rationale regarding the deletion of all non-director categories (for better or worse, the auteur theory still has currency). It's not as if the screenwriter's page can't include a comprehensive filmography - and better yet, that page is more easily trackable. Categories which are essentially filmographies have a questionable reason for existence. Furthermore, you could even say that we could delete the director cats, especially with not only filmographies, but "Films directed by" templates already doing the job - and again, with more oversight to article edits. Girolamo Savonarola 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Screenplays by author for reasons given above. Proposal to delete structure is a very bad idea. The auteur theory may still gasp on in critical theory but it is highly ideological and a clear violation of NPOV for Wikipedia to base its categories on it. Cinema has an inherently collective mode of production that in no way resembles the unique author model imported from literature. It is indisputable that screenwriters provide a notable contribution to that collective production (as opposed to the guy holding the boom). Cinematographers also. The articles on the films are about the screenplays in the same way that an article on an opera is also about the libretto (if it's well-written, that is). Only under exceptional circumstances does a screenplay have an independent life outside of its realisation in a cinematic production; that's what it was designed for, that is its proper 'mode of being'. To demand a separate article misunderstands this reality. DionysosProteus 00:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite agree - well put too. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for the category and structure as a whole. The contribution of the screenwriter to a film is traditionally greatly underrated and we should not aid the film publicity business in their dark work in perpetuating this myth. A split between "directors vs. everyone else" is no harder to defend than one between "directors and writers vs. everyone else". Not really bothered about the name - Rename per concensus. Johnbod 17:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per well-articulated arguments of DionysosProteus and Johnbod. Just because directors have had the clout in Hollywood to get top billing in the credits doesn't mean Wiki is obligated to reflect that fact in our categories. Category:Screenplays by author seems like it's probably the best name. Cgingold 21:17, 26 October 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:Diller Scofidio + Renfro projects[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 all. Kbdank71 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Diller Scofidio + Renfro projects to Category:Diller Scofidio + Renfro buildings
Propose renaming Category:Buildings by Trost & Trost to Category:Trost & Trost buildings
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per convention of parent cat. Otto4711 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:University of Baghdad alumni[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:Baghdad University alumni. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Baghdad alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Baghdad University alumni, to match Baghdad University. -- Prove It (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for a clear second. (However I wish there weren't any alumni categories. The whole former-faculty, current-faculty, alumni-of system just adds categories unnecessarily and it's rarely defining anyway.) --lquilter 16:42, 24 October 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:Works of Isambard Kingdom Brunel[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. Kbdank71 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works of Isambard Kingdom Brunel to Category:Isambard Kingdom Brunel buildings and structures
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the parent cat Category:Buildings and structures by architect. Otto4711 14:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about his boat which are neither. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and come to that his Great Western Railway which is as much a commercial concern as a physical entity. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm comfortable with categorizing a boat and a railway as "structures." Otto4711 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not sure a business amounts to a "structure". Don't ships have their own category like this? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should also have a parallel parent Category:Works by engineer which would be a more suitable home for Brunel & Category:Works of Thomas Telford ? Ephebi 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is with sub-cat for the buildings and structures, per Kevinalewis, Dgg & others. Johnbod 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - engineering works are not necessarily buildings and sometimes not structures. Engineers are not architects. I would suggest a series of categories Category:Engineering works of AB, with a super-category Category:Engineering works by engineer. This would become even more necessary, when the concept is extended to canals and river navigations, which are not buildings or structures, though no doubt bridges and locks indiviually are structures. Peterkingiron 23:47, 28 October 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:Towns in Aragatsotn[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. Kbdank71 15:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in Aragatsotn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Cities and towns in Armenia, currently there are far too few to warrant making province subcats. -- Prove It (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are 10 Armenian provinces and nearly 60 articles on Armenian cities/towns, working out to an average of six articles per province category. Would this still be overcategorisation or is the category tree worth developing? If the latter, then I'd be willing to undertake the categorisation; if the former, then merge per nom. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dividing them by province is the logical way to split them up, and if and when it starts getting big then we may want to do this, the same way that towns in the US are divided between states. My concern is that with so few articles, splitting them up into provinces isn't exactly helpful. Right now an interested party can see them all on the same page, and I consider that to be a good thing. Once there are so many that paging is required in any case, thats when I start wanting to divide them somehow. To some degree it's a matter of taste ... some people prefer to see everything at once, whenever possible, while others may prefer lots of small chunks. -- Prove It (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your response; I support the merge now. Although a 6:1 article-category ratio is not too bad (it's low, but tolerable), I see your point that the presence of just 60 town/city articles doesn't really require subcategorisation. The deciding factor for me was the fact that, while subcategorisation by province allows the subcategory to be linked directly from a higher-level province category (e.g., Category:Aragatsotn), there does not seem to be enough material to justify creating categories for the individual provinces. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and the above discussion. If merged, delete Category:Aragatsotn as empty. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:56, 24 October 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 Balanchine[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:Ballets by George Balanchine (a single l), per the article George Balanchine. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Compositions by Balanchine to Category:Ballets by George Ballanchine
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to include the full name and to match the rest of the ballet categories in the parent. Otto4711 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per Nom no 'brainer' should be done! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per both above. Johnbod 17:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, Just do this; "compositions by" is very dated -- and otherwise inconsistent with Wikipedia dance entries. Robert Greer 21:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:U.S. Presidents who served in the Civil War[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 bite your tongue, BHG. I mean, delete. As mentioned, all articles are already in Category:Presidents of the United States, merging not necessary. Kbdank71 15:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. Presidents who served in the Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Presidents of the United States, most US presidents are already in far too many categories. -- Prove It (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, an overcategorization. GregorB 15:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge on being too small with limited (or no) room for growth. Lugnuts 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree; do not merge. this category is of GREAT interest to those studying US presidents. this name, seemingly so minor to us, was of great significance in the history of the U.S., just as the era of president who served in World War 2 was also of great importance, and ended only recently with George Bush (the elder one). Similarly, this category will be very interesting for president who served in the Vietnam War, such as...oh yeah, that's right, there aren't any (yet). --Steve, Sm8900 18:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom and Lugnuts. Although this isn't exactly a minor biographical detail, it's also not a defining characteristics. We can't categorise people by everything they've ever done. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm. how about a new catetgory for politicians who served in the Civil War? maybe one already exists? --Steve, Sm8900 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We really can't go creating catgories for every intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 24 October 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:HONK! bands[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HONK! bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as performers by venue, see also previous discussions. -- Prove It (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ProveIt ... although the fest is fun it's certainly not a defining attribute that needs a category. --lquilter 16:37, 24 October 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:Works of Hans Christian Andersen[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 all, leaving diacritical in. Kbdank71 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works of Hans Christian Andersen to Category:Works by Hans Christian Andersen
Propose renaming Category:Works of Robert Browning to Category:Works by Robert Browning
Propose renaming Category:Works of Lord Byron to Category:Works by Lord Byron
Propose renaming Category:Works of Lewis Carroll to Category:Works by Lewis Carroll
Propose renaming Category:Works of Cicero to Category:Works by Cicero
Propose renaming Category:Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge to Category:Works by Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Propose renaming Category:Works of Daniel Defoe to Category:Works by Daniel Defoe
Propose renaming Category:Works of William Faulkner to Category:Works by William Faulkner
Propose renaming Category:Works of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe to Category:Works by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Propose renaming Category:Works of Washington Irving to Category:Works by Washington Irving
Propose renaming Category:Works of Josephus to Category:Works by Josephus
Propose renaming Category:Works of Juvenal to Category:Works by Juvenal
Propose renaming Category:Works of Cormac McCarthy to Category:Works by Cormac McCarthy
Propose renaming Category:Works of Ovid to Category:Works by Ovid
Propose renaming Category:Works of Alexander Pope to Category:Works by Alexander Pope
Propose renaming Category:Works of Margit Sandemo to Category:Works by Margit Sandemo
Propose renaming Category:Works of George Bernard Shaw to Category:Works by George Bernard Shaw
Propose renaming Category:Works of Jonathan Swift to Category:Works by Jonathan Swift
Propose renaming Category:Works of Alfred Tennyson to Category:Works by Alfred Tennyson
Propose renaming Category:Works of Terence to Category:Works by Terence
Propose renaming Category:Works of J. R. R. Tolkien to Category:Works by J. R. R. Tolkien
Propose renaming Category:Works of Ivan Turgenev to Category:Works by Ivan Turgenev
Propose renaming Category:Works of Kurt Vonnegut to Category:Works by Kurt Vonnegut
Propose renaming Category:Works of William Wordsworth to Category:Works by William Wordsworth
Propose renaming Category:Works of William Butler Yeats to Category:Works by William Butler Yeats
Propose renaming Category:Works of Chrétien de Troyes to Category:Works by Chrétien de Troyes
Nominator's rationale: Rename all - of the 290 subcats of Category:Works by author only these 25 (unless I missed any) don't follow the "Works by" construction. For Chrétien de Troyes the rename also includes removing the non-standard diacritical from the category name. Otto4711 13:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom - long overdue change - is clear in meaning, consistent with most other authorship by categories and also consistent with the parent category naming convention. All in all, this should pass straight through. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Agreed, it's long overdue.--Mike Selinker 00:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom, and agree this is long overdue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what reason is there to remove the "non-standard diacritical" ? I don't see a problem with it as the article name contains it. Tim! 12:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely clear you why you thought that meant it should be removed. It refers you to the unfinished Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which cites Edvard Beneš and Tomás Ó Fiaich. The main article has the diacritical; are the rules different for categories? Johnbod 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, like I said, I was going by what I thought was standard practice. I almost literally could not care less if the accent is kept or not. Otto4711 03:55, 26 October 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:Society and Culture[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hard-pressed to find any clear and obvious distinction between the words Society and Culture. There are scores -- maybe hundreds -- of articles and categories found under each word (cf American culture and American society.) Propose either A -- Making Society the super-category in every instance, and Culture the subcategory, or B -- Merging every instance of Society and Culture that are presently in separate categories. Talk amongst yourselves. --TheEditrix2 17:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is the current usage causing a problem? What is the implication of using one term over the other? Vegaswikian 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I collected this information from the Culture and Society articles:

Defining "culture": it has been called "the way of life for an entire society." As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief as well as the arts and gastronomy. [my comment: things people think or create]]

Society: The following three components are common to all definitions of society: Social networks Criteria for membership, and Characteristic patterns of organization [my comment: people groups]

These are two distinct concepts. How well these differences have been used in the names of articles and categories and the appropriate use of categories would need to be determined. Hmains 03:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Link to the categories like everyone else please. Pending that, Keep. Johnbod 01:26, 26 October 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:Plays by Robert Browning[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 match Category:Plays by author. Does not preclude reversing this if someone wants to nominate all of the subcats for a mass rename the other way. Kbdank71 14:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Plays by Robert Browning to Category:Robert Browning plays
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per convention of Category:Plays by author. Otto4711 13:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can see clearly that for "This" category the norm is for this form being proposed. However I would argue they should all go the other way for a number of reasons. Consistency of naming with parent category "Plays by author". Consistency with 'most' other "by author" categories. And also clarity of meaning about the relationship being stated, i.e. they are plays authoreb "by" the writer, not "owned by" or "acted by" or even "plays about". I personally believe the naming of the parent categories were chosen for good reason and although common usage would say that "William Shakespeare plays" is understood, how would we categorise any play he happen to have "acted in". Or would the meaning be immediately clear if we read a category "Margaret Jones plays". would that strongly imply authorial, ownership, acting, stageing, directing or what! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone else wants to go through and tag 200+ plays categories to discuss the rename, I'd be happy to participate in that discussion. I ain't gonna do it though, nuh uh no way. Otto4711 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd happily do most of the grunt work if agreed, the one thing I don't have access to though is the actual category rename ability itself. I'll do the article reassignments themselves. 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as is - the convention appears to be "Works by author"; if so; the present category appears to comply; so, why chnage it? If we need categories for plays staged by, directed by, acted in by, etc. (which I doubt), the appropriate extra word(s) can be added. "Works by AB" for literary works clearly refers to the author. Peterkingiron 23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed , however it is thus out of keeping to "most" of the companion categories in the same arena "Works by author". As discussed above. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:03, 29 October 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:Cellular Devices[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 relisted on oct 30. Kbdank71 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Cellular devices to Category:Mobile phones
Suggest merging Category:Cellular Device to Category:Mobile phones
Nominator's rationale: Merge, redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregorB (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 October 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:Kotoko songs[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. Kbdank71 14:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kotoko songs to Category:KOTOKO songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename - this was speedily renamed over my objection. The name of the singer is in all caps and despite what the WP:MOS says about trademarks the category should match the name of the band. See for example Category:ABBA and its album and song subcats. No one would suggest renaming those to "Abba" and this is no different. Otto4711 12:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to match Kotoko (singer), and Kotoko albums. In this case, the categories should follow the article, although one could certainly make a case for renaming the article. I'd support a rename if both the article and the categories were changed at the same time. -- Prove It (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ProveIt. Note also that ABBA is an initialism, while KOTOKO apparently isn't, so WP:MOS may well apply here. GregorB 15:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MOS:TRADE and precedent set by article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as far as the name goes, it's pretty common for Japanese artists to use "unnatural" mixes of caps, no caps, and Camelcase in their names, and as with all things Japanese that do this (for example, Bleach, the example used at WP:MOS-JA#Capitalization of words in Roman script), the names should be changed to natural English casing, as was done. —TangentCube, Dialogues 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's explanation: I closed this as a rename despite Otto's objection because of a previous nomination that resulted in Category:Kotoko albums. As Gregor also notes, ABBA is an acronym and KOTOKO is just a Japanese affectation.--Mike Selinker 23:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, following generally accepted capitalization rules and WP:MOS-JA specifically. Neier 11:59, 27 October 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:Drivers[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. Kbdank71 14:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging (1) Category:Drivers to Category:Device drivers
Suggest merging (2) Category:Third-party drivers to Category:Device drivers
Nominator's rationale: (1) Duplicate of existing category - the existing category has a less ambiguous name as well. (2) Also nominating Category:Third-party drivers for merging as there is no apparent need to sub-divide the category in this manner for a sub-category of 1. BencherliteTalk 08:02, 24 October 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:American Playwrights[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. Kbdank71 14:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American Playwrights to Category:American dramatists and playwrights
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of a well-populated category, plus an Extra Unneeded Capital. BencherliteTalk 07:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many cross over categories at Wikki for American writers ie: American dramatists, and Amercian screenwriters, American television writers. Of recent note are many articles with sub categories which include cross category references including American Theater directors, so I feel this category American playwrights is a valuable seperate category, but will acquiesce to the pervasive thoughts in the discussion here. I will correct the uneeded capitlaization of the word playwright.

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:Fictional kangaroos[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. Kbdank71 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional kangaroos to Category:Fictional kangaroos and wallabies
Nominator's rationale: Poor Rocko wishes to be united with his bouncy brethren. Will no one help our wallaby friend Rocko?--Mike Selinker 05:22, 24 October 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:Ferns[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 redirect. For the record, User:NekoDaemon, a bot run by User:AllyUnion, was the bot checking the category redirects when that FAQ was written, and in fact did check to see who added the redirect, and would not act on it if the user was not an admin. Apparently the new bot makes no such checks . Kbdank71 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ferns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete
Nominator's rationale: Was only one entry. Category:Pteridophyta is used for the ferns. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 04:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as unnecessary duplicate of existing category, and / or category redirect - not an implausible future recreation. BencherliteTalk 08:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redir is probably the better option since fern is the common term for Pteridophyta. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 08:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything has to start somewhere. Please revert your revert. --Emesee 08:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments and question Not everyone knows Latin. Not everyone is a biologist. What policy dictates categories are to be deleted and turned into redirects if there is only one article with in it? --Emesee 09:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point. However, if someone is not a biologist, they need to tread carefully before deciding to create new categories for plants, in case the work that has already been done by others makes the new category unnecessary. The article for which you created Category:Ferns (Cyathea capensis) was already categorized in Category:Cyatheaceae, which is a sub-category of Category:Pteridophyta, and (as the category text says) "Pteridophyta are the ferns." Alternatively, you could have looked at Fern and seen that the article was categorized in Category:Pteridophyta. Checking via either route would have shown you that Category:Ferns was not needed. As for "policy", there are various naming conventions and the rest is discussion between editors to reach consensus, influenced by precedent as appropriate. As for category redirects, see WP:CFD#Redirecting categories. BencherliteTalk 09:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Category:Pteridophyta, as a plausible alternate name. -- Prove It (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categoryredirect 132.205.99.122 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I would like to see the relevant WikiProject move pro-actively to identify all of the plant categories and common names that should have this sort of redirect, so we can "nip it in the bud" so to speak. If they will take this on, is there some way to expedite the process for creating all of those redirects? Cgingold 09:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. This is interesting. There seems to be some fuzziness on that point. The template page just explains how to use it -- but over at Categorization_FAQ it says: "Discuss this with an administrator or at WP:CfD because the bot only works if an admin adds the template to the category." That's why I asked about expediting the process. But it's odd, to say the least, that this issue isn't mentioned on the template page. Do we just ignore the FAQ page? Cgingold 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. Sounds odd to me that a bot would check the status of the editor adding the redirect before making the move. I think that the FAQ page is wrong: e.g. Category:Musician was created as a category redirect by User:Melsaran who is not an admin, yet User:RussBot changed a category in an article on the basis of that redirect. I have left a question for the bot's operator here to get confirmation of the situation. BencherliteTalk 12:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from bot owner as expected: bot not interested in who added the category redirect. BencherliteTalk 13:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the restriction is mentioned to prevent people from doing move-wars on category names. 132.205.99.122 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For information, I have updated the guidance. BencherliteTalk 19:50, 29 October 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:Martial law in fiction[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Martial law in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete and listify: Nominator's rationale: As a category, it's not clear that "martial law in fiction" is going to be a defining aspect of any of the included works, and there's no way to ensure that the categorization is not, basically, unreferenced original research. This would work better as an annotated bibliography or even better an article about the treatment of martial law in fiction, with an accompanying internal list. lquilter 03:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of the AfD discussions on such lists close as calling for the exactly opposite treatment--to use the category. doing this is at cross purposes. There are several ongoing discussions on how to deal with such articles, and this change is at the least premature.DGG (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rationale came up somewhere else. There definitely needs to be some coordination (cross-listing?) when a CFD says "listify" and when AFDs say "use categories". --lquilter 03:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ill-defined category (as evidenced by the number of improperly categorized articles). Oppose a list if for no other reason that many of the items here do not involve martial law. A totalitarian regime does not by definition mean martial law. A sourced article on the topic would be interesting, but not yet another "in this one book a guy said 'martial law'"-style list into which these almost inevitably deteriorate. Otto4711 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historical medical landmarks by country[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. Aside from the definition of "Historical medical landmark" below, "related to the history of medicine", which seems to duplicate Category:History of medicine, I see from the category itself that it pertains to "When they travel for personal or professional reasons, through this wiki-category, they can easily locate (potentially, at least!) important places to pay a visit to in every Country or Town: buildings, monuments, museums, libraries, birthplaces, works of art, etc.". Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Harvey Cushing made some pretty good advances in medicine, but he is not in any of these categories, Harvey Cushing's tomb (which is a redirect to Harvey Cushing(which makes no reference to his tomb)) is. Agostino Bassi's tomb in Lodi is also in one of these categories. Also a redirect, to Agostino Bassi, which does mention his tomb, which is in a church. Not exactly a "medical landmark" (he or his tomb). So it would appear that the category intro is correct, while "related to the history of medicine" is a bit misleading. And the nomination itself calls into question the terms "historical" and "landmark", neither of which are defined, and appear in fact to be subjective or ambiguous . Kbdank71 14:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical medical landmarks by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale
Categorisation into this category tree is not clear and objective, for two reasons:
First, "historical" is undefined; no standard is available by which to judge whether an object is 'historical'. Although some of the places in this category tree have official "historical" status (e.g. the United States Marine Hospital of Louisville is listed on the National Register of Historic Places), this status is not comparable across countries. Moreover, it is redundant with categorisation on the basis of official status (e.g. Category:Registered Historic Places in Louisville).
Second, the phrase "medical landmark" is open to multiple interpretations. For instance, it can refer to a landmark event (e.g. the successful birth of the first cloned mammal), rather than a place.
At the 2007 October 13 discussion for one of the subcategories, it was suggested that the phrase "historical medical landmarks" be replaced with "medical buildings" or "medical facilities". I do not think this is a desirable course of action.
First, medical buildings/facilities generally have their own category trees (e.g. Category:Medical research institutes, Category:Medical museums, Category:Hospitals). Merely renaming the nominated category tree would leave a significant amount of unnecessary duplication.
Second, many of the articles contained in this category tree are not what one might term 'medical buildings' or 'medical facilities' per se. It includes articles about sculptures (Pestsäule (Vienna)), paintings (Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp), libraries (Osler Library of the History of Medicine), museums (Musée Dupuytren), and so on.
Indeed, because of its breadth of coverage, the category tree seems to approximate a travel guide of sorts for those with an interest in medicine; this impression is further reinforced by the category description at Category:Historical medical landmarks by country.
For the reasons expressed above (lack of clear definition, excessively broad scope, unnecessary duplication in categorisation), I think that this category tree should be deleted in entirety.
  • Delete all as nom. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it took 2 days for the bot to tag the child cats, so I have moved the discussion to this page. --After Midnight 0001 01:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ones by country at least. It is not over-categorization, because the items here will be lost in the general category. But change the word "landmarks" to "monuments" which is the more general term.DGG (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of the articles contained in the category tree are not what could be called 'monuments'. For instance, some are paintings. Many others are simply normal buildings that have some type of local or regional historical significance. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I disagree with the proposal of deletion of these categories. In all this cases "Historical medical landmarks" simply means "related to the history of medicine", i.e. something actually existing which can be visited and studied in situ, by people interested in the subject. The problem of 'objectivity' in defining something "historical" is obviously a very big and difficult one. But, if so, what kind of objectivity can be attributed, for example, to categories as Category:Famous elephants (what kind of fame?) ... Or also the Category:Modern artists, defined as "the artists who had a role in the history of modern art" (what kind of role?), etc. And, please, give a glance also to the Category:Landmarks by country who gave me the idea of starting this new kind of categorization? Luca Borghi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is the intent of the category tree, then the title needs to be clarified. However, I am still not sure why we would want to categorise on the basis of "actually existing which can be visited and studied in situ, by people interested in the subject". How is that a defining characteristic of these hospitals, museums, libraries, sculptures, and paintings? As for the issue of objectivity ... while we can probably never attain it entirely, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try with the categories in question. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. The only item for the Czech Republic is miscategorized but, strangely, it is not possible to get rid of it in usual way (is the italicized category item some new feature in WP?). It should be also noted that medicine was not always that strictly defined and separated field as it is today. Pavel Vozenilek 00:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a categorised redirect; there are quite a few in this category tree. After arriving at the article St Thomas's Abbey, Brno, scroll up and you'll see the "(Redirected from Mendel Museum of Genetics)" notice. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all dropping the 'Historical' prefix. I think its a great thing to have a category of local places associated with major medical events, even if it does read like a tourguide. However, a few months ago there was a big push to tidy up various historic... and historical... categories. It became apparent that there are widespread editorial misunderstandings regarding the meaning of the terms 'historical' (all Eng. dictionaries=>old) and 'historic' (UK Eng=>notable for some event that happened in the past, US Eng=>both old or notable). In addition to the subjective nature of how old was 'old', it became apparent that we were mainly identifying things that are notable for specific events that had happened in the past, not just for being old. As all items in WP must meet the WP:N criteria, we might as well just drop the 'Historic' moniker unless it specifically relates to a named official classification (e.g. US Historic Landmarks). I also wish there was a nicer expression than 'landmark' that solely dealt with significant physical places, but in the absence of anything better I suggest renaming them all from, e.g. Category:Historical medical landmarks in Austria to Category:Medical landmarks in Austria , etc . Ephebi 14:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - none of the suggested solutions seem an improvement to me. This is further backwash from the harmful craze of some months ago for removing all "historic" etcs from buildings categories everywhere except in the US, where the various registers are easily available online and use this word in English. So the only buildings allowed to be historic on WP are the Victorian brick boxes and 30's gas stations that make up the bulk of US state registers. Johnbod 17:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If was to remain as is, I would rather it was 'Historic' than the grammatically ambiguous 'Historical' for the reasons above Ephebi 09:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong views on that, although I disagree that there is in fact any ambiguity in between "historical" and "historic", when applied to buildings. See this google result. Johnbod 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I'm not convinced that we need this level of breakout. If kept, drop the 'historic' since in this use, 'landmarks' pretty much describes the articles on its own. Shorter names and we probably don't lose any information and don't add any confusion. Vegaswikian 07:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Important for medical history. Rename if necessary. — Jonathan Bowen 15:26, 29 October 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:Managers in the Republic of Ireland by club[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. Kbdank71 13:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Managers in the Republic of Ireland by club to Category:Football managers in the Republic of Ireland by club
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to clarify that these are not managers of supermarkets, banks, or any other business; and for consistency with the parent categories Category:Football managers in Ireland by club and Category:Football managers by club. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 24 October 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:Culture in Highland[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. Kbdank71 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culture in Highland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - contains no articles and a single subcat which I've added to Category:Scottish culture. Unnecessary layer. Otto4711 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Scottish culture. "Culture in the Highlands" is potentially quite a well-populated category, but this mis-spelt version isn't worth keeping. (upmerge rather than delete in case it is populated before deletion)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 24 October 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 Riches[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Riches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. Material doesn't warrant a category. Otto4711 00:19, 24 October 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:Rescue Me[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. Kbdank71 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rescue Me to Category:Rescue Me characters
Nominator's rationale: Rename - with the exception of the show article and a random ep list, everything here is for characters. Otto4711 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom after removing the main article and the episode list. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:18, 24 October 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_October_24&oldid=1140562397"