Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21 June 23 >

June 22[edit]

Anglican suffragan bishops[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 5#Anglican suffragan bishops, please comment there. Thank you, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in the Province of Canterbury and Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in the Province of York have a mixture of names for sub-categories - "in Foo", "in the Diocese of Foo", "in Foo Diocese", "in Foo diocese". Following this CfD, I propose renaming/merging the following categories to "Anglican suffragan bishops in the Diocese of Foo", for consistency:

Will finish tagging later. Tagged, and (per roundhouse0's prompting), WikiProject notified. BencherliteTalk 21:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that individual biographies should be categorised under the particular appointments held, not under a dicocesan or provincial category. This means that these small categories have noroom for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to upmerging, I have no strong opinions but would note, for the benefit of the closing admin, that (1) the categories already named "Diocese of Foo" are not listed above and would need to be included; (2) as well as checking whether York or Canterbury was the correct upmerge target, some categories would need further upmerges e.g. the London category is also a sub-cat of Category:Bishops of London. BencherliteTalk 01:51, 23 June 2008 (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:American sex symbols[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: SPEEDY DELETE as recreation of previously deleted category. Postdlf (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American sex symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: To categorize someone under the title "sex symbol" is largely a POV overcategorization based on individual viewpoints and is difficult, if not impossible, to support objectively. This category should be removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "...overcatergorization based on individual viewpoints and is difficult..." so is calling someone who is an actor with a good voice, but isn't really working as a singer as a profession at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Underdawg (talk)contribs) 20:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I'm not sure what that has to do with this category. If a person sings, he or she is a singer. If a person acts, he or she is an actor. There is no equivalence in what determines if someone is a sex symbol, except the opinion of the person who categorizes it. The subjectiveness of the category can be seen in the persons put into the category. Of the present 35 persons, 12 of them are professional wrestlers. One is Michael Jackson. This is all subjectivity and goes against the principles of neutrality. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too subjective a category to be non-POV, and virtually impossible to source reliably. It would convey little information as a category. --Rodhullandemu 20:40, 22 June 2008 (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:Mexican drinks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Mexican drinks to Category:Mexican beverages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mexican drinks to Category:Mexican beverages
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed name would be consistent with other categories in Beverages by region. gidonb (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency. Needs to be placed in the subcategory mentioned by nom, too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly. Thank you for spelling it out! gidonb (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and move per Good Ol'factory.--Lenticel (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2008 (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:Arsène Lupin[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, precedent is not binding, but what precedent there is is for such small, eponymous categories to be deleted as they do not aid navigation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Arsène Lupin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization for a fictional character. The lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this seems to be the category for the Arsene Lupin fictional universe, and not the character by itself, so I do not think it is OCAT... whether there's enough to keep it is a different question, but the reason provided for deletion seems invalid. 70.51.10.4 (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is parented in categories pertaining to fictional characters, not fictional universes. Otto4711 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contents are not consistent with its current heirarchy, but the category's name can serve for either purpose, so it just needs to be moved to another heirarchy. Ofcourse, many categories are miscategorized... it would not need deletion to correct such errors. 70.55.87.161 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point still stands that the main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. The small amount of material in the category is adequately interlinked through the main article and with each other. The category is not needed. Otto4711 (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The article would do the trick alone, but the category does not hurt either. gidonb (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2008 (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:Intelligence gathering legislation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Intelligence gathering legislation to Category:Intelligence gathering law. Not an ideal solution, but somewhat better than the current name. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Intelligence gathering legislation to Category:Intelligence gathering law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Many of the articles contained in this category are not statutes (and therefore, not legislation). We should broaden its scope to include all law involving intelligence gathering. —Markles 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The issue addressed by Markles is just one of the problems with this category. A more fundamental issue is the scope in terms of subject matter. Although it specifies "Intelligence gathering", the articles currently in the category cover an array of subjects ranging from regulation of intelligence agencies & activities, to protection of classified information, to criminal sanctions for espionage. Amazingly, the one article that directly pertains to the narrow subject of "Intelligence gathering" -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- was not even in this category until I added it, despite being the most well-known of all U.S. intelligence-related laws thanks to being in the news continually for the last several years.

In my judgement "Intelligence gathering law" per se is probably too narrow to serve as a viable category. We might want to broaden it to cover the regulation of intelligence agencies & activities, which would include much of what is currently in the category, but would I think exclude the Official Secrets Act, the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. We could also consider broadening even further so as to include all of the above.

One last issue has to do with the parent categories. The category's creator placed it in Category:Espionage, which I changed to Category:Intelligence (information gathering) -- a better match for "Intelligence gathering". He also placed it in Category:United States federal defense and national security legislation -- indicating that he intended it to be used for articles pertaining to the United States. At present there is only one non-US article, Official Secrets Act, but there are two other articles on other Official Secrets Acts, and probably other non-US articles as well. So we need to make a decision on that aspect too. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: Of the 9 articles currently in the category, only 2 -- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the newly-added FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (which could well end up being merged into the other article) -- actually deal directly with the subject of "Intelligence gathering". Two other articles -- Executive Order 12333 and National Security Act of 1947 -- are about wide-ranging legal instruments that touch on the issue of intelligence gathering, although that subject is not addressed in the articles, so their inclusion in the category is something of a judgement call.

If we rename per nom to Category:Intelligence gathering law, at a minimum all of the other 5 articles will need to be removed. If we wish to broaden the category to include all of the articles -- including those that address, for example, criminal sanctions for espionage, etc. -- we'll need to settle on a name for it, along the lines of Category:Intelligence and espionage law. (That's not so much a proposal as a starting point for discussion.) Cgingold (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2008 (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:AfD debates (Bugs or glitches)[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. BencherliteTalk 22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:AfD debates (Bugs or glitches) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: This category was created solely for this AfD. It does not cover a broad subject and is not supported by the Afd templates so is unlikely to be used again. ascidian | talk-to-me 11:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The code used, 'G', is for 'Games or sports' and not 'bugs or glitches'. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only other plausible code - B - would fall under biographical articles, so no go there either. Glitches from games usually go to G - Games, other software would be T - Technology or O - Product, depending on context. Prominent glitches (like the Year 2000 problem) would also go to S - Society. So, even if there was a use for this category, other existing categories already encompass it. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:40, 30 June 2008 (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:Energy from Ocean and Water[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: no consensus, discussion continuing at Category talk:Renewable energy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Energy from Ocean and Water to Category:Hydropower
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Essentially duplicate categories named differently. The target category is older, shorter, and named in accordance with the main article Hydropower. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]
Objection: I believe that 'Energy from Ocean and Water' should encompass 'Hydropower' and 'Tidal Power' and 'Wave Power' and 'Ocean Thermal Exchange' and 'Ocean salination differentials', not replace any one of them. I was cleaning up the renewable energy category last night, didn't get around to hydropower yet. GG (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is growing out of hand. GGByte is changing, deleting and replacing categories on many renewable-energy related articles, without discussing or stating what are the intentions. He/she seems to have some idea on what the categories should look like, but the rationale is not obvious. Also it is not possible to comment on the proposed changes this way. Please start a explanation/discussion on the talk page of an appropriate category, so that we can see and discuss what is the idea. Please also give comments accompanying the edits. These changes may all be very good and improving things a lot, but at the moment I am missing the overview. Crowsnest (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further the deletion of other categories on the already changed articles has to be carefully re-assigned. Crowsnest (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we've had Category:Renewable energy in Developing Countries and Category:Renewable energy in the third world created by the same editor on the same day. Both misnamed, and probably redundant to boot. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename The proposed name, 'Energy from Ocean and Water', is not logical since oceans are a subcategory (in real life, not in the WP sense) of water. The existing name, 'Hydropower', is too much associated with hydroelectricity, it is more or less a synonym. One does not expect tidal power etc. in the category 'Hydropower'. I would propose to merge both categories and rename them to 'Water power'. That is also how the U.S. DOE calls their research area on the subject, see [1]. Crowsnest (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have any clear preference concerning merger, however, if not merged, the Category:Energy from Ocean and Water should be renamed according to WP:CAPITAL. The current name also is not very clear, logical and encyclopedic. Beagel (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and per the article Hydropower, which encompasses water, both in oceans and en route. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --Duk 21:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I watch hydropower. This article is mainly about power derived from descending water (watermills, hydro-electric schemes, etc.), but I do not see why tidal power should not be included and even wave power, both of which depend on the flow of water. However, issues of salinity and energy from deep ocean geothermal vents would need a separate category, perhaps "power from the deep ocean". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledge comments/ Postpone Apologies, I am this author renaming categories and making all the trouble. I have been notified by a few people of the correct procedure for renaming and organising categories and will endeavour to discuss changes before being so bold. The renewable energy category was very incoherent when I started cleaning this up and is more organised now, however two categories in particular have caused some trouble among concerned Wikipedians, these being Water Energy and RE in the third world. Both are valid categories and are important topic in the field of renewable energy. I will be starting a discussion here and suggest that this decision be postponed until clear consensus is reached on the big picture. GG (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2008 (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:Fly Fishing Waters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify, that is to say, restore the "unweildy embedded list", or, if that's not suitable, fork it out into a stand-alone list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fly Fishing Waters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Was listed for a speedy rename but really is an ambiguous name. The criteria is totally POV. In the few articles I checked, fly fishing is mentioned but does not appear to be a signifiant point of notability. If kept, rename to Category:Fly fishing waters. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category resulted from the removal of an unwieldly embedded list in the Fly fishing article. I would disagree with the Notability and POV thoughts above as everyone of the waters in the category are undisputably fly fishing waters. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replacing the embedded list with a category is not always the best choice. A template, like, the one already there is another choice, but expanding it would be ugly. A list article appears to be the most appropriate choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - categorizing waters by the sort of activities that might take place on or near them is untenable. Any body of water can host any number of activities and so would quickly accumulate numerous clutterful categories. If the goal is to remove an "unwieldly embedded list" from the main article, then per WP:SUMMARY split the list off into List of fly fishing waters or something similar and source the entries. Otto4711 (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to Fly Fishing Waters in North America (if kept rename as this), per nom & Otto. We had a similar sailing waters category once. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can support a Listify rather then an outright delete in my nom. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category currently holds both N. American and British waters. If we Listify with the name: Fly fishing waters in North America would it also be appropriate to create a companion list Fly fishing waters of Europe (to accommodate Great Britain, Ireland, Scotland and the Scandinavian countries.)?--Mike Cline (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only because you just added ONE. That will hardly make a separate list. There are not enough to justify more than one list, but if you are going to go outside N America do it properly. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Amwell Magna Fishery was always on the list and its in England. I only added the Itchen because I stumbled on to it drafting another article and it struck me that a great many notable British and European waters already have articles and would ultimately be added to the list. It wasn't added to make a point.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I do not understand how people can object to this category. The nominator said he/she only checked a "few" articles and found that they do not appear to be "notable". Well the checking should have been more through before subjecting this category to this time wasting process. If you actually do a rapid check through the items, using the navigation templates at the top right and starting here, you will find the fly fishing waters are mostly well documented, and certainly notable to those with an interest in them. There are relatively few definitive fly-fishing waters around the world, so the notion another editor has of "clutterful categories" in this context is an unwarranted fantasy. Deleting the category, just to keep the deletionists happy, makes it more difficult for serious editors to keep track of fly fishing waters, and raises the question of why Wikipedia bothers to have categories and organise things at all, and why editors should bother to try and make a better Wikipedia. These items still have to be categorised, but without an appropriate category they must go into an inappropriate category. Replacing ithe category with a list is useless – the deletionists will demand the list is deleted! Sigh... --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A decision here to Listify should be a very strong Keep argument in any AFD. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I agree with your principle, but not with your application here. The examples you provide do not parallel the case of fly fishing waters. The categories you suggest could be applied to pretty much any waters, whereas notable fly fishing waters are rare, far and few between, often steeped in history and hallowed by fly fishing enthusiasts. You are offering the old "domino" idea – let one fall and all the others will fall. It is no more valid here than it was in Vietnam. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're being just a wee bit dramatic here with your invocation of hallowed waters and Vietnam. In point of fact we have seen category proliferation like this on more than one occasion. The entire actors by series structure which was dismantled a couple of years ago, for instance. Or the models by commercial endorsement structure that put Christie Brinkley into some 60 different categories. It's pretty irrefutable that categories beget like categories, and given that different waters can and do serve different recreational functions, the category schemes I mention above are likely to come to pass in the absence of restraint now. A sourced list of notable fly fishing waters is the much better way to go here, because it can include information on how and why these waters are so sanctified by fly fishers. A bare alphabetical category can't. Otto4711 (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify per Otto4711. Waters should not be categorized by how they are, have been, or can be used, for the reasons given above. Postdlf (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the category under discussion is the only existing one that categorizes specific bodies of water by their use (there is not even a logical parent of Category:Fishing waters), your comment is rather inexplicable and nonsensical. But thanks anyway. Postdlf (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find those distinguishable, as Category:Fly fishing is a category for articles about a water activity, and the others are categories about how the waters are classified (what they are) rather than what people might do in them (this is particularly evident for the waters named "____ Bank", or "____ Sancturary"). I predict you will disagree with that (and I'm still confused by your invocation of Category:Oceans as somehow relevant here), but I really have nothing to add to Otto4711's comment above, timestamp 13:46, 29 June 2008, as to why I think this should exist as a list instead of a category, so I refer you back to his explanation. Postdlf (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above discussion is interesting when you view Fly Fishing as an activity that requires above all some body of water (a location to perform the activity) (river, lake or ocean) for that activity to take place--of which there are both notable and non-notable bodies of water. Now lets compare the activity of Fly Fishing to a couple of other activities Golf and Hiking which both require golf courses and trails for the activity to take place. In WP there are articles on both notable golf courses and notable trails and in both cases there are associated categories which hold location (destinations) articles related to the activity--Category:Hiking trails which has a number of sub-categories and Category:Golf clubs and courses again with a large number of sub-categories. How do these differ from this category in that they merely categorize articles that comprise locations for the activities to take place--nothing more or nothing less?--Mike Cline (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Golf courses are laid out for people to play golf there, and hiking trails are cut and maintained for people to hike on them. The reason why they were created was to support those uses. Postdlf (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, golf clubs and courses are only golf clubs and courses. They are not also host to a wide variety of other activities. Similarly, hiking trails are in general only hiking trails and do not play host to a wide variety of other activities. No one is suggesting that categorizing places by the activities that take place there is across-the-board improper. What we're saying is that it's not appropriate in this particular instance (bodies of water based on the activities they host) because the same body of water can host a myriad of aquatic activities. A list article, which can cite reliable sources as to why these particular waters are notable as fly fishing sites, placed in Category:Fly fishing, preserves the information and allows editors to expand upon it. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally Speaking as you say I tend to disagree with you that Golf Courses and Hiking trails are exclusively for golf and hiking. Many golf courses are designed as wildlife refuges, host cross country foot races, have convention, hotels, banquet and other event facilities to support other activities. There are golf courses that actually host and allow interesting fishing in their water features. Golf Courses and Clubs CAN and do host many more activities other than Golf. Hiking trails are merely highways that allow access via foot, bikes, and other smaller conveyances for both recreation, maintenance, research, safety and a host of other activities. The statement that because the same body of[[ water can host a myriad of aquatic activities is a bit a ingenuous because many of the waters listed host ONLY fly fishing and are managed as such. No other water activity is permitted nor allowed. Its doubtful you'd find any kayakers on the Firehole River. In fact on chalkstreams such as the Itchen and Test, there is instense and physical (mowing of the aquatic vegetation) management to maintain the fly fishery.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then the Connecticut river has "fly-fishing only" regulations for just 5 of its 407 mile length. The Arkansas river (nice photo of kayaking) seems to have fly-fishing for just 10% of its length. If the category stays, eventually every river where anyone has ever dropped a fly, which is nearly every river in the world, will be in the category - see Fishing Brazil's Amazon, In search of fly fishing heaven Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But see, it's not just this specific category that's at issue here. It's also the principle of whether we want to open the door to the possibility of a wider categorization scheme of bodies of water by usage. Otto4711 (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, I think your rationale is inconsistent with the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the Wikipedia:CLN guidelines on lists and categories. Why would one scheme warrant more validity than another? Are all the valid category and list schemes already decided? Johnbod, your point about the Connecticut river, although true is not relevant, portions of the river are a notable fly fishing destination and the article supports that. Because its in the category, does not imply 100% of the water has to be notable fly fishing water. Additionally, although there are 100s of rivers (maybe 1000s) articles in WP, only those that discuss fly fishing to a notable extent would appear in the category and the threat that the category would fill up with just any ole water article somewhat insults those of us who are using the category on a regular basis.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some things work better as lists, some as templates and some as categories. Just because in some instances lists and categories happen to work together well, that doesn't mean that two or all three systems should be used in every instance. In some instances, one is preferable to another. For example, consensus is that actors by television series is best handled in list format and the categories for them were deleted. I am of the opinion that, because of the large number of uses to which individual bodies of water may be put, and because there should be sourced information explaining why any particular body of water is considered a fly fishing water, that a list is superior both for avoiding potential category clutter and to provide greater encyclopedic content. You mention in this nomination that there are chalk streams in which extensive action is undertaken to preserve them for fly fishing, but neither article mentions it. Going into that level of detail in the main article might unbalance it, but that would certainly be an interesting and encyclopedic piece of information with which to build a list article on the world's fly fishing spots. Of course not every possible valid list/category combination has been sorted out and asking it even rhetorically is silly. Otto4711 (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2008 (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:NGOs in Bangladesh[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all as nominated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:NGOs in Bangladesh to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Bangladesh
Category:Namibian NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Namibia
Category:Ethiopia NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Ethiopia
Category:NGO's in Sierra Leone to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Sierra Leone
Category:Australia NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Australia
Category:Austria NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Austria
Category:Belarus NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Belarus
Category:Burma NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Burma
Category:Cambodia NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Cambodia
Category:Canada NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Canada
Category:Czech Republic NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in the Czech Republic
Category:Finland NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Finland
Category:France NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in France
Category:Germany NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Germany
Category:Indonesia NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Indonesia
Category:Ecuador NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Ecuador
Category:Denmark NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Denmark
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to remove acronym and to match the parent categories like Category:Organisations based in Bangladesh. Feel free to add additional categories to the nomination if you wish. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment note that Category:Non-governmental organizations by country utilizes "Foo's NGO's" format.--Lenticel (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename You have a point in the parent cats and the abbreviations. Let's see if this cfd will have a support for a rename. Then we could use this as precedent for group renames (not mass renames) of Foo NGO's.--Lenticel (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foo NGOs" is an incorrect naming format that simply hasn't been corrected yet. It isn't an accepted or standard naming format, which is why these were taken off speedy. All of the "Foo NGOs" subcategories should be renamed in the format "Non-governmental organizations based in Foo". Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this nomination succeeds, I'll try and do the rest using this one for precedent. If anyone wants to include more in this nomination I have no objection. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all – per nom and later arguments. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (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.

Categories:Fooian Egyptians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Armenian Egyptians to Category:Egyptians of Armenian descent and Category:Turkish Egyptians to Category:Egyptians of Turkish descent. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as continuation of recent iniative to rename Cats:Booian Fooians to Cats:Fooians of Booian descent for reasons already discussed at length in a number of nominations carried out in May and June Mayumashu (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The current articles names are confusing. "Egyptians of Armenian descent" or "Armenians of Egyptian descent"? Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2008 (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:One hit wonders[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: speedied as recreation of category deleted numerous times previously. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:One hit wonders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category has been deleted at least three times before before because it is unable to supply the necessary context. Initially nominated for speedy deletion as recreated content, but the nomination was declined. - Eureka Lott 00:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt - likely to continue to be recreated, so salt it. Otto4711 (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_22&oldid=1141928448"