Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 14 February 16 >

February 15[edit]

Category:The Macerich Company[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. Kbdank71 15:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The Macerich Company to Category:Macerich
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article Macerich, and precedent of other similar mall categories such as Category:General Growth Properties, Category:Simon Property Group, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- seems a logical move to me, but I am English. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." JB82c 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to match main article. Man, if we never renamed a category unless it was completely "broken", we'd probably never rename anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2009 (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.

Anglicans parent category (-ies)[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: procedural close. Consensus would appear to favor C, both. Kbdank71 15:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision about parent category or categories needed.
This is not a proposal to rename, merge, or delete. Rather, discussion is needed to resolve an issue that has arisen relating to the appropriate parent category or categories for these Anglican categories. The question is simple: should Anglicans be categorized as a subcategory of (a) Protestants, (b) Christians, or (c) both? Note here that in the category structure (a) is a subcategory of (b). Originally, most were categorized under (a). An editor has recently expressed interest in changing these exclusively to (b); other editors have questioned this approach. (See Category talk:Anglicans by nationality.)
In the meantime, I have established the "compromise" position of implementing (c), that is, categorizing Anglicans under both. So—what solution should be adopted here? It goes to the basic question of whether Anglicanism is "Protestant" or not, which of course is a very complex question that depends much on how one defines certain terms. I personally have no strong opinion one way or the other, but barring consensus, I think the fact that there is a dispute might suggest that (c) might be the best solution here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protestant -- That seems obvious because Anglicanism is a movement that arose out of the Reformation. Protestants should be a subcategory of Christians (with Catholics and Orthodox). Other Protestants will include Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, etc. The problem is perhaps that Anglo-Catholics regard Anglicans as a variety of Catholics, but this party (one of perhaps five in the church) should not be allowed to dictate policy to the rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for this consensus is that major theologians agree that the Five solas are the marks of the Protestant churches. One of them, Solus Christus, includes a priesthood of all believers. This is found no where in Anglicanism, where Priests are seperate from the rank-and-file members.
To call Anglicans "Protestant" is as incorrect as refering to the Copts as Eastern Orthodox - which adherents.com admits is often incorrectly done, as well. They aren't Protestants. John Keble, Edward Bouverie Pusey, John Mason Neale and many other Anglicans are currently in a sub category of Protestants - which is ridiculous. There is almost no way some of these men could have been any less Protestant. The Traditional Anglican Communion is currently holding talks with Rome about a corporate reunion later this year which will result in some sort of union. It could even create a uniate Anglican Church. Those Anglicans will then be categorized as both Catholics and Protestants - which is from both a theological and historical perspective, impossible. The current theological position is that Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants are all distinct branches of Christianity. This is cited at Wikipedia and is consistent throughout, except here in the categories. It has been suggested by one user that we should perpetuate in the categories an outdated and largely Roman Catholic POV that is at odds with the consensus in article-space because of ease of use. This is wrong. By that logic the Assyrian Church of the East article should be moved to Nestorians since outside of Wikimedia they are often incorrectly called that and that is where (some? most?) people will first look for them.
As for WP:RS, Encyclopaedia Britannica calls the Anglicans "Catholic and Reformed" but makes no mention of Protestant. The oft cited adherents.com agrees here, itself citing Britannica and stating the "Major Traditional Branches of Christianity" include Catholic, Protestant, Other Christians, Orthodox, and Anglicans. A further statement describes "Significant Sociologically Distinct Branches of Christianity" and lists, among others, Conservative Protestants, Liberal Protestant, and Anglicans. Make no mistake, it is clear on the folly of linking Anglicans to other Protestants in any real sense in a special footnote which states, "Anglicans are clearly distinct from Liberal Protestants in history, polity and liturgy." Lastly, the trusted [Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church] does not include the Anglicans among the Protestant Churches. Modern Christian scholarship is quite clear on this. The reason for the error is summed up as follows, "If the data is more detailed (usually because there are larger numbers of Christians), Christians will be divided into "Catholics" and "Protestants" (with Orthodox/Eastern Christians typically classified as Protestant)." We wouldn't move the Orthodox to this sub cat - why would we leave the Anglicans there in error? .-- Secisek (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commemnt: You fail to cite a single source for your bogus claim that "major theologians agree that the Five solas are the marks of the Protestant churches." Most Protestant do not even know what the Five solas are (either coltivlly or indivully) and I have never seen a church statement of faith (and I have looked at many) to make the Five solas part of it. I expect it would be part of a the Book of Concord, a 16th-century book importan to Luthern churches, but Luthernism seems to be about 10% of Protestantism in the US, a far cry from "all."
  1. While the claim is bogus but you did not present it in bad faith. You think it is true.
  2. As an experenced editor I am sure you know the difference between citing a source and citing Wikipedia articles about human beings who happen to be theologians but whoes articles do not have sections on the issue with the names of a book, date, and page that others could look up and not just take your word on it and your interpretation there of.--Carlaude (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did not ask for a citation you asked, what "major theologians" stated the marks of the Protestant Church. I pulled three I was fammiliar with off the top of my head. Don't confuse the issue, here - you are now just gang-saying my responses. -- Secisek (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote myself, "You fail to cite a single source for your... claim". That is not a request for more detail on the claim, such as the names of theologians, and take note-- you have still failed to cite any sources for your claim. --Carlaude (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adherents.com, the site you cite, does not seem to confirm your claim anywhere. All Adherents.com does is quote data from another source.
  • Commemnt:The data is organized in such a way that it confirms that Anglicans are dealt with as a branch distinct from Protestants at large.--Secisek (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedian Anglicans have already told me they Catholics and Protestants now-- so if they do not see a contradiction, you will understand if I do not yet see one. I do not see any document more basic to all of Anglicanism that the Thirty-Nine Articles, and it says "the Church of Rome hath erred".
  • Commemnt: What you have been "told" or your WP:OR is not relevant to this discussion.--Secisek (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why would anything you tell us be relevant to this discussion, unless you cite sources. --Carlaude (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have from the start which is what is frustrating about your approach. I have a verbatium quote from THE one-volume source on the subject of the Christian Church that states Anglicanism exists outside of Protestantism and you have yet to provide a single published second or third party source that states Anglicanism is a Protestant tradition.
  1. My sources are much more direct than any "Dictionary" on the "Christian Church" would be.
  2. I quote two sources to make the point (which most folks can see with out any external source) while your cited sources to make any point of yours total zero.--Carlaude (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So which source is this "one-volume source on the subject of the Christian Church"-- the Oxford Dictionary which you finily made clear does no such thing-- by quoting it below?
  • See my additional quote below. --Carlaude (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surly you are not basing for view on the silence of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (in the said article). Lots of important facts are not mentioned in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.--Carlaude (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, would not such an important fact be mention in Encyclopaedia Britannica?
  • Is the last source a quote the "trusted" Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church of "'Catholics' and 'Protestants' (with Orthodox/Eastern Christians typically classified as Protestant)." It seems to prove nothing but the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church should not be all that trused. Whoever heard of "typically" classifing Orthodox or Eastern Christians as Protestant!--Carlaude (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commemnt:My point exactly. For demographic purposes, it is not uncommon to split Christianity in to "Catholic" and "Protestant" camps. In this incorrect sense, Anglicans are Protestants - but so are Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, which you agree is unheard of.--Secisek (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you see that the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church makes a bogus claim about typical classifing Christians and hence the Oxford Dictionary cannot be considered "most trusted"-- good I am glad we agree. --Carlaude (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are collapsing into unconstructive arguement. Read what the quote says. It points out that it is incorrect to categorize in this manner. That is the value of the quote to the arguement. -- Secisek (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will read the whole quote if you provide the whole quote.--Carlaude (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can see from the depth of my response this is a fammiliar discussion at Wiki and consensus has always supported the view that Anglicans are NOT Protestant.-- Secisek (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I am fammiliar with the discussion at Wiki. By the way and consensus has not always supported your view.--Carlaude (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commemnt:Can you wiki-link a talk page where a large consensus favoured Anglicans as Protestants for our benefit? -- Secisek (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never claimed large, and no since you prove intent to root out all references in Wikipedia to Anglicans as Protestants. --Carlaude (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-response and should be read by all as such. "I have them, I just wont show them to you." That is not being constructive. -- Secisek (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • C: Protestants & Christians -- Outside of Wikipedia and worldwide-- Anglicans are categorized as Protestants, and hence that is were people will first look for Anglicans.
This is clear even to (non-Wikipedia) Anglicans such as the Offical Website of the Episcopal Church in the United States. It states under its glossary item on Protestantism:
I find Wikipedia to be overwelmed by the some Anglicans that dislike be called Protestants. Be that as it may, categoryspace opporate under different guidlines and the only downside I see to just having it categoized correctly under "Protestants" and under "Christians" is setting a less than great example, but I see that Anglican Wikipedians will also look under "Christians" for "Anglicans".--Carlaude (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the words of the standard text on US denominations. --Carlaude (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If some people consider protestants objectionable and inaccurate, but everyone agrees that christians is accurate and unobjectionable, then it seems petty to insist upon the former purely for the sake of the extra precision. Hesperian 05:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commemnt: While I understand and empathize with the logic of this idea-- it is this (and the mistaken idea of non-Protestantism) that got references to Anglicans being Protestants slowly removed all over Wikipedia. Wikipedia articalspace is ment to inform, and so I can live with some polical-correctness in the articalspace , but that is not the purpose of the categoryspace. Categoryspace exsists only to help people find articles-- like redirect do-- and if people will look in Category:Protestants for Category:Anglicans, then it should be there.--Carlaude (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commemnt:This is not even about what some Anglicans think. That misses the point. Nor is it about what some editors of the categories think. It is about what can be cited. For the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, a work that was reviewed by Library Journal as being "unrivaled as the authoritative one-volume dictionary of the Christian church, its doctrines and practices, and its most influential historical figures.", The exact quote on the subject states that Anglicans follow "a religious and theological outlook distinguishable from that of other Christian communions, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant." (itals added) If it is a POV, it is a widely held and published one and in Wikipedia, that is enough. --Secisek (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be what that quote says but I thought you and I agreed above that the Oxford Dictionary makes a bogus claims about typical classifing systems of Christians
We agreed on this? Where? You're arguement is disolving into rhetoric. -- Secisek (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So should we follow the views of "Roman Catholics, Protestants, and some Anglicans" or the ambivalence of "some other Anglicans"?
  • As for whatever you are quoting above (should try and do this more clearly as you are talking about multible souces) it would be eqully true if it said Seventh-day Adventist follow "a religious and theological outlook distinguishable from that of other Christian communions, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant" -- but it would still not be a claim that they are somthing other that a Protestant Christian communion. So now it turnes out that the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church does not even support the view that you claim it does! Secisek, Please do quote all your sources from now on.--Carlaude (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commemnt:It may or not be equally true because the fact is we don't know what the Oxford Dictionary says about 7th Day Adventists because it is not relevent here, unless you are attempting to set up a strawman. The quote speaks for itself and I make no "claims" as to what it says. The Seventh-day Adventists are a Protestant church in that they grew out Millerism - a movement founded by a man who was himself a Baptist. They clearly come out of the Restorationist Movement which is largely accepted to have it roots in Churches that were formed on the Continent at the time of the Reformation. Anglicanism is not part of Protestantism because the forces that guided the English Reformation, which the scholarship agrees was related - but seperate from - the wider Protestant Reformation, were unwilling to accept many Protestant doctrines. This can be seen as leading to the English Civil War, which was in fact a battle between Anglicanism and Protestantism. Protestantism won and Anglicanism was crushed until the Restoration. -- Secisek (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A strawman is a weak argument put in the mouth of another-- but your argument is that a statement such as "Group-A follow a(n)... outlook distinguishable from that of other Christian communions, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant" is somehow a statement that Group-A is not Protestant. This idea does not follow from the grammer.--Carlaude (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm not a Christian of any denomination, and my main interest here is amusement as an amateur of English history in seeing the centuries old debate continuing. Based on the above discussion, it would seem to me that the entire set of our article on the Anglicans is influenced very strongly by an Anglo-Catholic bias--by one of the two complementary views. My own view, and I think the general one, supported by essentially everyone in the world except a party within the Anglican church, which for theological reasons of its own rejects the common usage. When the British refer to the protestant succession of the monarchy, what else do you think they mean? DGG (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protestant (or Protestant & Catholic) I'm with DGG. The entire point we're discussing is based on some rather obscure meme that seems to affect an inner part of Anglicanism. It's plenty obvious that the Anglican Church and many of its derivatives are some sort of Protestant (if anything, even in the broad sense in which Hussites are Protestants), and a clash of interpretations, in which the "we're not Protestant" camp appears to be the minority opinion, has been taking place within the church for centuries - what other churchhes tend to "solve" with a schism, but I'm not here to tell them what to do. I also strongly object to the literalism of such an approach, and the "let's here from them" thing when presented as a final argument (I would maybe accept such an approach if the Anglican Church had a pope): as one editor said above, categories are here to inform - in my view, they also establish how terms are related to each other in the closest and most obvious ways, not to obtusely translate supposedly "exact" definitions. Just like we don't remove the Shia or Druze subcategories from the relevant Islam categories because Sunna followers may object to their inclusion in the opposite sense. If anything, the Anglicans are both Protestant and some kind of Catholic, and the categories can reflect that by being included in both. Dahn (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commemnt:The problem is with the individual articles that are placed in subcats of Protestantism or Protestants that are not in any sense Protestant at all. We currently have articles such as Pastoral Provision, Anglican Use and Book of Divine Worship which concern the Roman Catholic Church which are in a subcat of Protestantism. What does that category mean when it includes Roman Catholic articles? I still cannot imagine why this is so contentious. Also, calling the treatment of major reference works on the subject an "obscure meme" is ignoring the reality of the scholarship on the subject.--- Secisek (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You present me with a false dilemma, which I suppose originates with an interpretation of the category tree that I cannot share. For starters, the articles you cite appear to stand somewhere at the intersection of two categories: Catholic and Anglican; Protestant through Anglican makes a third, but not directly so. What I have said above and am saying again here is that the relation between categories is one of relevancy and inclusiveness rather than one of determinism and exclusiveness: a cat may formed around around a concept may even include antonyms of that concept is they are closely related to the subject. For example, the category for Fascism should include articles related to the ideology (even the "anti-fascism" article, since it is directly related to fascism); the category itself should be part of the Nationalism category, even if some of the fascist parties did not explicitly appeal to the nationalist ethos, but merely to some form of collectivism. This process, if I recall correctly, is or was stated explicitly on one of the wikipedia pages related to categories. Furthermore, there is absolutely no need to assume that, particularly when considering the aspects outlined above, the contents of a subcat will correspond exactly to what's on every level above it: Anglicanism as a whole is related (nay, a part of) Protestantism; no implication is ever induced that everything in the Anglicanism category will also be related to Protestantism. It's in there because it's related to Anglicanism. As for the obscure meme: the statements made are part of an age-long controversy, in which the, for lack of a better word, "pro-Catholic" side seems to be the one with less exposure (though, again, nothing is entirely certain in a diverse a church as the Anglican); the other interpretation, of Anglicanism as Protestantism, is abundant if perhaps more casual (it would be tiresome to quote the huge number of sources which make it, particularly since it is uses subtle language, reflecting a subtle history - but I notice such evidence was already invoked by other editors posting here). Dahn (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe categories cease to have meaning when an article about a book published for use by the Roman Catholic Church is in a subcategory of Protestantism. As a user pointed out, quite sensibly, "If some people consider protestants inaccurate, but everyone agrees that christians is accurate and unobjectionable, then it seems petty to insist upon the former."
Consider that the early point of contention was with articles on individuals being included, through the Anglican category, into the Protestant one(s). Now, provided you consider starting the headache of a category on Anglican Protestants (which I for one would advise against on principle, it being structured around a POV), it would require a case-by-case research into each person included in the category, to see if they either adhere(d) to what "we" view as "Anglican Protestant" (i.e. "more Protestant than Anglican") or if they made unquestionable statements of the "I consider myself a Protestant" nature. Contemplating such categories is, to my mind, like using a bazooka to scratch one's back. Dahn (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked why the "we're not Prtotestant" camp would want to stay in a non-Protestant Church. I pointed out that it is the "We ARE Protestant" camp that has left a non-protestant Church in a series of schisms. You seem to now be dismissing this because because the category Anglican Protestants would provide further precision? That is perverse. How is the category Anglican Protestants structured around a POV? These groups have left the Anglican Communion to form Protestant Anglican Churches. That is fact, not POV. -- Secisek (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, because under no definition would those "Anglican protestants" be the only Anglican Protestants, not would Protestantism be an exclusion criterion for the Anglican Church. I am certainly not "dismissing this because because the category Anglican Protestants would provide further precision", but, as I have said a couple of times above, because it would condone a false dilemma, and because it would be unfeasible when one considers the paradoxes (i.e.: "sure, x, y, and z are 'Anglican Protestants' because they adhere to distinct branches that are Protestant - presuming we know exactly what adherence means in that unregulated a context; but what about those who did not, and to whom the term may also apply?") Furthermore, in a significant number of, or even most, cases, "Anglican Protestant" is a tautology. The cases where it is an oxymoron appear to be the exception, applied only to those Anglicans who reject the label, and not even to those who do not make a point of stating their relation to it. The label itself is POVed (and a likely neologism), since it is structured around the position of people who reject the label (as part of a debate that is carried within the church, tolerated by the church), and since it caters to this perspective (per the Shia-Sunni thing I mentioned earlier, I don't think this approach is reasonable).
Now, Secisek, I've had my say, and you're currently making me repeat myself. It's obvious we don't see eye to eye on this issue, and that this is because we don't relate to the same things in the same way. I for one have things that interest me more, and since I believe I've made my case, and I believe you have made yours as far as our intermezzo went, I think it's up to other editors to decide who they believe makes the better point. Regards, Dahn (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your case still ignores that there are very real Anglicans who are members of the Roman Catholic Church and could not be Protestant in any way, shape, or form. That said - I couldn't agree more about the cases being made. If I had any idea that the change was going to cause this I would have left it alone. What a distration. -- Secisek (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I am sure there are former-Anglicans, and whole churches there-of, that have joined the Roman Catholic Church, but it would still need to be shown how it is meaningfull to call these people and groups "Anglican" still. Maybe there is some good reason, but I would not think it is common usage to do so with the same meaning. Anglicanism without the Thirty-Nine Articles seems not to be Anglicanism-- and the Thirty-Nine Articles says "the Church of Rome hath erred". --Carlaude (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both, and sometimes "Catholic" (not RC obviously) as well. That Anglicans are, or at least were, Protestant is very well established in English historical, and indeed legal, usage - see the OED, which rightly defines one as "A member or adherant of any of the Christian churches which which repudiated the papal authority .... in the Reformation ...." Numberless quotes from Anglican divines defining themselves and their church as Protestant can easily be found. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not all it says, "a member or follower of any of the Western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation." Principals that include the priesthood of all belivers and other Protestant principals rejected by Anglicanism as a whole. I am not arguing that there are no Anglican Protestants. I cited some above. -- Secisek (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that you claimed but failed to cite, over and over, above.--Carlaude (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are already Anglicans in the Roman Catholic Church in the USA and the very real possibility is that their number will swell. Johnbod, everybody, there is a common mistake that Anglicanism is a denomination. It is a bracnch of the Christian Church. There are Protestant Anglicans, Roman Catholic Anglicans, Anglicans who believe they are both, and those that think they are neither. I think this is a misunderstanding on the part of many poeople here. The BRANCH needs to be moved. -- Secisek (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The OED clearly doesn't believe in your definition of the principles of the Reformation! And rightly so. That "Anglicanism is a denomination" is not merely a "common mistake", but a universal one. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2009 (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.

American Civil War Categories[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: merge each as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles for Jackson's Operations Against the B&O Railroad of the American Civil War[edit]
Suggest merging Category:Battles for Jackson's Operations Against the B&O Railroad of the American Civil War to Category:Battles of the Main Eastern Theater of the American Civil War
Nominator's rationale: Category too narrow. Only one entry. McMuff (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles of Streight's Raid in Alabama and Georgia of the American Civil War[edit]
Suggest merging Category:Battles of Streight's Raid in Alabama and Georgia of the American Civil War to Category:Cavalry raids of the American Civil War
Nominator's rationale: As per the previous entries. McMuff (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles of the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid of the American Civil War[edit]
Suggest merging Category:Battles of the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid of the American Civil War to Category:Cavalry raids of the American Civil War
Nominator's rationale: Category too narrow in scope, only one article. This and other articles like it would be served just as well in the more general category. McMuff (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles of Morgan's Raid into Kentucky of the American Civil War[edit]
Suggest merging Category:Battles of Morgan's Raid into Kentucky of the American Civil War to Category:Cavalry raids of the American Civil War
Nominator's rationale: Category too narrow in scope, with just a single entry. McMuff (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles of Averell's Raid on the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad of the American Civil War[edit]
Suggest merging Category:Battles of Averell's Raid on the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad of the American Civil War to Category:Cavalry raids of the American Civil War
Nominator's rationale: Too narrow a category, with just a single entry. McMuff (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responses[edit]

Note - all the above nominations raise exactly the same issues. I have therefore joined them together.

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:Druze by country[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 to "Druze people of FOO nationality" format. Kbdank71 15:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Druze by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Egyptian Druze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Israeli Druze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Lebanese Druze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Syrian Druze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rationale: These are all nationality categories for articles about individual people, so their names should reflect that by using the standard formulation for such categories. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -- Druze refers to a religion that branched off from Islam many centuries ago. Like many such Middle Eastern religious groups, endogamy has resulted in it virtually becoming an ethnicity. The standard format for dual natiopnality categories is "Booian people of Fooian descent", but this is a non-standard case. I would suggest the form (except for the first item) should be Category:Druze people of Egyptian nationality. etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you raise a good point, PKI, and I would be amenable to your suggested formulation if other editors feel that it is preferable. Cgingold (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - I am the category's original creator and I also agree with the rationale. -NYC2TLV (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary religion/nationality combination OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I think Peter's suggestions may be the safest route here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2009 (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:Jumblatt[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. Kbdank71 16:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete and upmerge articles as required. As things currently stand, this smallish family category is not really needed, as all 3 members of the family are linked to one another and through the short article about the family. If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Jumblatt family. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Jumblatt family or abstain. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- this is a notable Lebanese political family, but the function of the category could be better performed by a navbox template. I suspect all the articles will already be adequately categorised. If kept, rename as nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - small eponymous category, not needed to connect the few articles which are already interlinked. I don't think a navbox is necessary either. The links within the articles suffice. Otto4711 (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Category:Jumblatt family Normally I would agree with the deleters, but Lebanese politics are & long have been largely organized around family-warlord groupings, of which the Jumblatts are one of the most notable. If we had more articles on modern Lebanon, we would have more articles here (I've added the family party). Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2009 (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.

Software piracy[edit]

= Category:Software piracy[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. Kbdank71 15:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=

Propose renaming Category:Software piracy to Category:Copyright infringement of software
Nominator's rationale: rename: non-neutral name. There is also Category:Warez not connected with this one. AVRS (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2009 (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:Pirated video games[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. Kbdank71 15:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=

Propose renaming Category:Pirated video games to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: rename: non-neutral and confusing name. User:Good Olfactory reverted my manual move to Category:Video game derivatives violating copyright, calling it “an attempted back-door category rename”. The category currently contains only one article. AVRS (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2009 (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:People from Udupi[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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. NO need of this Category. Udupi is not a vey popular city. This category is completely redundant with Category:Mangaloreans. It has only 2 people. At the most, it can just include 5 to 10 people. Not a vey effective and encyclopedic category. Kensplanet (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now integrated as part of a structure within the Karnataka category of Category:People by state in India. Has potential for growth. Consider renaming as Category:People from Udupi district. As for Category:Mangaloreans, that has fairly clear notes indicating that it covers a wider area. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify in Udupi, then Upmerge to Category:Mangaloreans. This is the best solution until a potential category is sufficiently populated to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, silly nomination. This category created just one day ago. I will increase the count soon. The nominator says Udupi is not popular city, which is WP:OR. Udupi is well known for world-famous Udupi cuisine and Udupi Krishna Temple. -C21Ktalk 00:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suspect the nom intended "populous" for "popular". But the city has 127,000 people, so there's certainly potential for growth. Give it some time. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • O Come on, there are 612 districts in India. If all start creating their own Category:People from XYZ district, then it will be a complete mess. This will allow people to create categories like Category:People from Dakshina Kannada, Category:People from Puttur and other such not so popular places, which are completely redundant with Category:Mangaloreans. Udupi is not like London, New York, Mumbai, Tokyo. It's just an ordinary city. People from Udupi are popularly referred as Mangaloreans only. No one recognizes them as this person is from Udupi. Many people don't even know what is Udupi. How many people here knew what is Udupi. Forget non-Indians, most Indians themselves don't know what is Udupi. Kensplanet (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great assumptions by Kensplanet. People from Udupi are not referred as Mangaloreans, they are called as Udupians. Mr.Kensplanet dont speak nonsense, if you don't know what is udupi, thats your problem. and this is not the reason to delete the category. C21Ktalk 09:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than being a new category, I don't see how this category differs from, say, Category:People from Santa Rosa, California. The population of SRCA is about 156,000 and it's quite an ordinary city both in popularity and population. Few people outside of Santa Rosa know anything about it. And yet its people-from category has not created a complete mess. What would be the problem with having 612 people-from categories? --Stepheng3 (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, People from Udupi are referred as Udupians, but they are also referred as Mangaloreans. Just because a Person from New York is referred as a New Yorker, that doesn't mean that person is not an American. Don't teach me about Mangalore. I am a Mangalorean Catholic. I know much much more about Mangalore. Your knowledge on Mangalore is just Internet based and nothing. Kensplanet (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Story goes this way. During the British regime, there was only one district named South Canara with Mangalore as its capital. This was till 1997. So anyone from South Canara was generally referred as a Mangalorean since Mangalore was the chief city. For example, People from Mysore district are referred as Mysoreans. You need not be from Mysore City only to be a Mysorean. Similarly People from South Canara were also referred as Mangaloreans. Then the Karnataka Government decided to bifurcate South Canara into two districts Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts in 1997. But that doesn't indicate People from Udupi are not Mangaloreans. The fact still remains that People from Dakshina Kannada and Udupi district, which were the parts of the undivided South Canara, are culturally, linguistically similar. Kensplanet (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of structure; so what if there are 612 of these for India's 1+ Billion people? With 1/4 or 1/3 the population, should the US be held to 153 or 204 of these categories? no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2009 (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.

Commonwealth cats[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main cats Category:Competitors at the 1954 British Empire and Commonwealth Games, Category:Competitors at the 1958 British Empire and Commonwealth Games, Category:Competitors at the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games, Category:Competitors at the 1966 British Empire and Commonwealth Games,Category:Competitors at the 1970 British Commonwealth Games, and Category:Competitors at the 1974 British Commonwealth Games. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2009 (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:Lists of former entities[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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of former entities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is an absolutely ludicrous category. What is supposed to go here? Dead people? Ex-countries? Ex-organisations? Ex-political parties?! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OMGWTF was I thinking. Rules99 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, it just wanted some sub-categorization, which I have now done. User:Rules99, you were probably thinking it was a valid sub-category of Category:Former entities, which it is. At any rate, it should not be nominated/discussed by itself but alongside the parent. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep - I concur with Fayenatic's assessment that this is a perfectly valid category -- an obvious sub-cat of Category:Former entities and Category:Lists. (Though at first glance, I think a couple of those shiny new sub-cats are perhaps a bit too small... but I'll take a more thorough look later.) Cgingold (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I merged the stub List of defunct medical journals into another article, as I could not find any company for it by way of lists of defunct publications. However, I think you will find the sub-cats looking better fed now. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- most seem to refer to former political divisions. Dead people would not belong: we categorise people the same way whether alive or dead. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if cleaned up: (former) routes and buildings are not "entities" in any stretch of the language that I can come up with. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Former entities is the top level category for ex-things, do you have an other suggestions for the title? Rules99 (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2009 (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:Catholic Cardinals[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 for growth potential. If after time nothing gets added, it can always be upmerged in a new nomination. Kbdank71 15:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Catholic Cardinals to Category:Catholic Cardinals (sports)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is for the sports program at The Catholic University of America, whose teams and competitors are named the "Catholic Cardinals". The name is ambiguous because it is (purposively, no doubt) quite similar of Category:Roman Catholic cardinals, and could therefore use a disambiguator. I suggest "(sports)" but any of a number could work equally well. (There's no main article to name it after in this case.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reminds me of the inadvertently shocking/humorous headlines for Catholic sports teams that turn up in the newspaper from time to time, like "Cardinal Cushing routs Jesuits" or "Archbishop Williams upsets Cardinal Spellman". And I fall for it every time! LOL. So, by all means, either rename per nom -- or delete, since all it contains is a single sub-cat, Category:Catholic Cardinals football coaches, which can just as well be parented directly by the head category, Category:The Catholic University of America. Cgingold (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Cgingold. No prejudice to recreation should there be a sudden explosion of articles related to the CUofA sports program. Otto4711 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not delete, but upmerge to Category:The Catholic University of America. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I found a couple additional articles in the main CUA category. The category is quite new, but the sort that is likely to grow over time.-choster (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2009 (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.

Swiss footballers by ethnic[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. All articles are in Category:Swiss footballers already, so the last 6 categories will be upmerged respectively to Albanian-Swiss people, Swiss of Bosnian descent, Turkish Swiss people, Swiss French people, Swiss German people, and Swiss Italians. If there are sourcing problems in a particular article, the article should simply be removed from the ethnicity category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Swiss footballers by ethnic origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Swiss footballers of Albanian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Swiss footballers of Bosnian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Swiss footballers of Turkish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Swiss French footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Swiss German footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Swiss Italain footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - over-categorization, poorly sourced for their ethnic (by canton?!). Switzerland not like a other nation have de facto separate entity likes Kosovo, Turkish Cypriots. Matthew_hk tc 09:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is Category:Swiss of Bosnian descent. Matthew_hk tc 03:31, 18 February 2009 (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:Designing Women episodes[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. Kbdank71 15:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Designing Women episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no immediate chance of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2009 (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:Stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame[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 deleted as re-created material (2008 Sep 23). Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is redundant to and a less thorough list of List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I see no benefit from this category, which would be of no benefit except on the pages of articles already listed. It doesn't even contain the "List of" page, which may indicate the creator of the page doesn't realize it is there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a recreated category, otherwise delete. Otto4711 (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2009 (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:Ghost Town DJs songs[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 - same ol', same ol', nothing new to see here, move along : ) - jc37 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ghost Town DJs songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is the only song the group ever released, and they disbanded in 1997. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:58, 15 February 2009 (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.

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus[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. Kbdank71 15:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Languages of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to Category:Languages of Northern Cyprus (target is soft redirect)
Propose renaming Category:Cinema of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to Category:Cinema of Northern Cyprus
Propose renaming Category:Music schools in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to Category:Music schools in Northern Cyprus
Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to Category:Universities and colleges in Northern Cyprus
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Northern Cyprus" is the standard way to refer to the entity in articles and categories. See Category:Northern Cyprus and subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename All per nom. Clearly these sub-cats need to have standardized naming. Cgingold (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2009 (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.

Biota of countries test proposal[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: keep. Erik9 (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General biota categories

Fauna categories

Flora categories

Two ecozone targets: Requires manual merge

Nominator's rationale: Merges as nominated above. This nomination is by its nature incomplete, the entire world-wide system being quite large, so this can be considered a "test" nomination to gauge consensus to determine if I should proceed with the complete "plan" as outlined below.
  1. This nomination is a result of this discussion and other similar ones at CfD where the appropriateness of having "biota of country" categories has been repeatedly discussed. Please read the previous discussion before commenting, as it includes points relevant to the proposal that I am not reproducing here for space concerns.
  2. Essentially, I'm proposing collapsing all of the "of country" categories into more general "by ecozone" categories (some of which I have already created and populated). There are 8 ecozones that are now widely used in the scientific community after a team of biologists convened by the WWF developed the system. I've selected this over a "by continent" system simply because the "by ecozone" sorting seems to be more widely used by experts in the field. This nomination focuses on the Afrotropic ecozone.
  3. Many countries of the world reside entirely within one of the eight ecozones, in which case the merge is easy. See map. Other countires are in two or more ecozones, which will require manually dividing the country articles between the two or more ecozones. The ones that reside only partly in the Afrotropic ecozone are indicated below as requiring manual merges.
  4. Sorting by ecozone doesn't have to be the end of the story if they become too crowded. Each ecozone is divided into ecoregions of a particular biome type. The further subdivision could take a lot of work and is beyond the scope of this initial proposal.
  5. However, it is unlikely that the resulting ecozone categories will be too crowded. For the categories of many countries in the ecozone, the same articles are simply listed in country category after country category. There may not be many more articles in the final categories than currently are in the country category with the most articles.
  6. Implementing this system will be very effective in reducing the already-existent category clutter that exists on many article pages. For instance, see African Buffalo—the many country categories on this page can simply be replaced with Category:Afrotropic fauna.
  7. Where does this leave the classification of biota by country? Many countries have excellent articles about the biota in the country; see Category:Wildlife by country. These articles would seem to be more appropriate than categories for most countries. For countries that are relatively unique in their biota, I agree that categories for the endemic animals of that country should continue to exist, as in Category:Endemic fauna of Madagascar, which can both be a subcategory of Category:Afrotropic fauna and in the Category:Madagascar tree.
  8. If this proposal is met with positive consensus, I will follow up this nomination with nominations for the other 7 ecozones, which in the end will have included every biota by country category that currently exists.
  9. If this proposal is met with no consensus or a negative consensus, I think deletion of the target categories I have already created would be fine. I've simply created and populated them here to help give an idea about what should be included in the ecozones and how the system might work.
  10. Since this proposal would have a fairly major impact if accepted, I've notified Wikiproject Tree of Life, Wikiproject Animals, Wikiproject Plants, and placed a notice at the Village Pump. I also called my mom and gave her a heads up. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I mostly work with flora by country and can tell you that flora by country is the kind of data we have, the kind of data readers will recognize, and is a small enough category for most plants. (Yes, yes, political boundaries are made up, but this is what everyone references when giving a location of an organism.) For plants with larger ranges, we already categorize them in large geographical terms. I can see ecozones being another parent category, but by no means should we merge the contents of these categories. We'll lose a lot of data that way! Readers will generally be more interested in browsing the flora or fauna of a certain country, not by ecozone. I must commend you on the amount of work done, but I just don't think it's necessary or practical. --Rkitko (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: At least on the flora categories, I know User:Hesperian has been working toward (amid the many other time-consuming projects he takes on) making all of the flora by country categories comply with the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. --Rkitko (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The WGSRPD work is somewhat related, but not a direct refutation. Should Category:Flora of the United States be a subcategory of Category:Flora of North America; and if so, where does that leave Category:Flora of Hawaii? We don't have to deal with murky categorisation questions like that, because real-world botanists have already tackled them, made the necessary compromises, and encapsulated the outcomes in a standard. We follow that standard. If this proposal was based on the argument that categorising by country was too hard, rife with conflict and compromise, then I would hold up the WGSRPD as a refutation of that, at least with respect to flora. But as far as I can tell, the only rationale present in Good Olfactory's nomination is "this will be very effective in reducing category clutter". I must concede his argument is irrefutable. Indiscriminate wholesale deletion of categories can be relied upon to reduce category clutter. Hesperian 04:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you read the previous discussion linked to? It doesn't sound like it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you read it. Did you notice who nominated that category for deletion? Hesperian 04:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes I have as I was involved in the discussion. The fact that you started the discussion doesn't mean you have necessarily read all that came after the nomination was started, since you didn't participate in the discussion further. The other issues raised (not necessarily by you) are relevant to the proposal, which is why I linked to it in the first place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong oppose this very silly proposal. We reflect the conceptual structures that people use in the real world; we don't impose our own view of how we think people should see the world. Like it or not, people do want to know about the biota of their country. They always will, and regardless of whether or not their country is a biogeographically sound region.
    I have never comprehended the argument that says "let's eliminate a massive structured collection of useful, informative, well-defined categories, just to ensure that our articles on the most widely distributed taxa don't look a little crowded at the bottom." If that isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I don't know what is. And African buffalo isn't even a particularly compelling example; the categories on that article looks just fine to me.
    I have long advocated the practice of only putting biota-by-distribution categories on endemic and lowest-rank taxa. This helps because many of the most widely distributed plants and animals have subspecies. In the case of the African Buffalo, there are five subspecies. The articles on those five subspecies should be (created and) categorised by country, and the species article put into Category:Fauna of Africa alone, because it is endemic to Africa. This practice minimises the problem of over-categorising articles, while maximising the utility of these categories. This is the solution, not the wholesale destruction of sensible, well-structured, well-defined category trees. Hesperian 04:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Unfortunately, your proposed solution has never been implemented or widely followed either, so we're still back to square one in resolving the problems. By the way, category clutter was an additional reason I threw in here, but if you refer to the referenced discussion again (I assume you looked at it), you'd see that of course it's not the primary reason for the proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category clutter is the only rationale you have given here. Everything else is proposed implementation details.

        Am I to understand that your rationale for a proposal to delete distribution-by-country category, which I strenuously oppose, is exactly the same as my rationale for delete a distribution-by-subnational-entity category? WTF?! If I'm strenuously opposing a rationale I made myself, doesn't that suggest you might have gotten confused somewhere along the line? Hesperian 04:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not your rationale for deletion specifically—the other issues raised in the discussion. I didn't reproduce them all here out of space concerns. If you want to play games and suggest I'm not including all rationales talked about there in this discussion, that's fun—but I think most users can handle the link. Sorry if it resulted in some confusion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If your rationale is that of certain commenters in that previous discussion, but not that of the nominator, ought you not actually explicitly state your rationale? Are participants here supposed to read the previous debate and guess which bits of it you agree with and consider relevant here? How are those who disagree with you to address your arguments if you studiously avoid making any? Hesperian 10:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I'm not that interested in expounding on my own views. All, any, or none of the reasons mentioned in the last discussion can be considered here. This is a discussion and I'm leaving it wide open rather than cherry picking the issues that I think are important to talk about. That may be disturbing or confusing for some users, but I'm fine with it. In this case I'm actually—surprise!—more interested here in the discussion process and contents than the actual results, which will further disturb some users, but I have my disturbing reasons for it all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, then. A question for you. You recognize above that simply merging these categories into the much larger ecozone categories might present us with an overstuffed category and that ecoregion categories can break it apart. How many publications that you've looked at list biota by ecoregion and not by political boundaries? Ecoregions don't precisely follow political boundaries and finding out what the precise range of each taxon is in order to place them in the correct ecoregion categories seems to be beyond practical, especially since we're lucky if publications post the exact range (rare organisms are often protected by vague descriptions of their location). Further, political regions like states and countries usually keep updated lists of local extinctions so that we can maintain these country, state, or provincial categories. I'm operating with the assumption that this proposed merge will require the ecoregion categories almost immediately. How do you propose to deal with the highly impractical and nearly impossible task of identifying each organism's range? (As an aside, I've dealt with this frustration a bit once in the country categories when using Peter Taylor's monograph on the Utricularia where he lists the ranges of species as Czechoslovakia or Soviet Union from the perspective of an author in the 1980s. The real ranges [Slovakia, Czech Republic, or both?] were much easier to track down than the answer to the question - which ecoregion? What if ecoregion boundaries change?) --Rkitko (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I agree that it could be challenging in cases where countries span two ecozones. But the issue of determining range of an organism is not one that categorizing by country (or subentity within countries) solves either in any real way. We still have to determine the organism's range and whether it includes a particular country or geographical subentity. No doubt it would be easier to find sources that refer to countries. Practically speaking, in most cases I don't expect it would much of an issue, however, just as it's not much of an issue now with most cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "I agree that it could be challenging in cases where countries span two ecozones. But the issue of determining range of an organism is not one that categorizing by country (or subentity within countries) solves either in any real way" - What about countries that span two or more ecoregions? That's more common and more to the point of my comment, there are currently 4154 articles in the category and subcategories of Category:Afrotropic biota, which you want to merge up into just 4 or 5 categories. The scope of those categories will be too large, requiring the use of ecoregion categories in your categorization scheme (this is to say that your points 4 and 5 above in the rationale are a side-step around a problem that will be created by this proposed merge by saying it's beyond the scope; it can't be beyond the scope since this problem will be created and have to be dealt with). By country categories don't suffer from the same problems as by ecoregion categories, namely that we have data on organism range by country, state, province, etc. and those lists by reliable sources are often easily accessed and familiar to users and editors. I don't yet see the point in this merger proposal. --Rkitko (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Are there 4154 unique articles or is that the total when you add up the number of articles in each category? By "beyond the scope" I didn't mean completely unrelated; I meant that I wasn't including an immediately proposed subdivision in this nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes, 4154 unique articles. I just did a quick AWB category scan of Category:Afrotropic biota with 5-level recursion and duplicate removal. Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification on what you meant by scope. Still, in this kind of proposal with this many articles involved, it really must be considered, not casually mentioned. You've done a lot of work here and I think it's great that we now have another parent category for these country categories. If you could resolve the (in my opinion irresolvable) issues with the necessary ecoregion categories, you might get a few more supports. --Rkitko (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • No, I agree that you've put your finger on a central problem with the proposal. It's essentially the same as DGG's point below, I believe. I'm not intent on having this proposal be the way to go. I'd like to see some progress in consensus as to what the appropriate approach would be. If it's that "by-country" is indeed the preferred way to go, then I think it's not a wasted effort and we can be further ahead in agreement than we perhaps were at the start of the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, this sort of merger would be logical except for one problem: almost ll the books and other sources go by country. That's the way they've been written, and extracting & reorganizing the data would be a useful, albeit enormous, job--and it would basically be the sort of synthesis that belongs on some other project. DGG (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think categories by country should be converted to list by country with the tag requesting reliable citations. There are numerous cases where the categories are added in a very slipshod way, difficult to evaluate if the categorization is correct. Ideally the faunal and floral categories by country should be deleted as has been done in the past and perhaps it appears salted. Shyamal (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain how this relates to this proposal? Are you suggesting we should have no categories that organize these geographically? Or are you saying we need a geographic system but just not the by-country system? If the latter, what are you proposing? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although I'm somewhat lukewarm about categories as a way to handle geographic incidence data, we definitely want some kind of information more fine-grained than one of 8 ecozones in the whole world. To make up my mind on this proposal, I don't really need to delve too deeply into details, like the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions versus other notions of "country", other roughly-country-sized divisions, etc. Kingdon (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This has long been a thorny problem. I support in principle merging of national fauna categories into those by ecozone, but I think the zones chosen as nom are probably too broad. Though not an expert, I would suggest tropical Africa; Sahel; Sahara; north Africa (i.e. between Sahara and Mediterranean), etc. Madagascar should certainly be omitted because it has its own unique biota. Is Palearctic really the right term? This should mean "old arctic". Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC) (not an expert on this)[reply]
'Tangential - yes Palearctic is correct - it means Old World Northern Hemisphere high latitude regions - compare the New World Neartic and Neotropical ecozones. Holarctic (whole arctic) is the combination of the Palearctic and Nearctic. The term Palaeotropics is also in use. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it would be quite useless to categorize the wildlife of China and the wildlife of Great Britain together. By country makes more sense to the non-professional community, which is the intended target of Wikipedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I can't see any value in merging the categories for the floras (or faunas) of Morocco, Mongolia, Finland, and Japan. There are more than ecozones at work in shaping the composition of a flora. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - simply following the arguments of the opposers above - following Rkitko, DGG and Hesperians opinions I could not express it better - I think Wikipedia would a better place without such a proposal going through SatuSuro 13:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think that the failure of this proposal should imply that the ecozone categories should be deleted. I would much prefer to browse biota by ecozone than by country and I believe other readers should have that option. I have a feeling that country biota should be listed not categorized, unless it is native only to that country or 2-3 others. Rules99 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I won't delete them as their creator. To be deleted they will have to be nominated like any others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2009 (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:Tribes[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 to Category:Tribes (video games). Kbdank71 15:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tribes to Category:Tribes (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category refers to a series of video games, but obviously the current name is ambiguous: see Tribe (disambiguation). Suggest a rename to match main article Tribes (series). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2009 (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:War on Terror[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:War on Terror to Category:War on Terrorism
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article and most subcategories refer to this as the "War on Terrorism". Some uniformity is needed one way or the other, and this seems the most viable move. See also the two below. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename as proposed. I would gladly support restoring this category (& sub-cats) to the original name, which was only changed because the main article got moved to "War on Terror". I take it that the article is back to where it should be now (and let's hope it stays there!). Cgingold (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Methinks we've been here before; cats go where the article is, which I hope is semi-permanent by now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2009 (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:War on Terror orders of battle[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 to match article (see above). no consensus on deletion. Kbdank71 16:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=

Propose renaming Category:War on Terror orders of battle to Category:War on Terrorism orders of battle
Nominator's rationale: Rename. see above. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Little likelihood of growth; no apparent purpose served by this cat; articles are already in other, more appropriate categories. Hmains (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2009 (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:Military Units and formations of the War on Terror[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. Kbdank71 16:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=

Propose renaming Category:Military Units and formations of the War on Terror to Category:Military Units and formations of the War on Terrorism
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See above. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment What purpose does this category serve? Is there a military battle, operation, or campaign named the War on Terror? Is there a military award for being in the 'War on Terror'ism? Or just awards for being in Iraq or Afghanistan of whatever? Hmains (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be perfectly happy with an outright deletion. I only proposed renaming first since someone obviously thought there was a need for it (It's not a subject area I know much about). Grutness...wha? 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Unacceptably broad. We can have categories for Iraq and Afghanistan (and Somalia and the Philippines etc (which should be in the appropriate regional conflict cats)), but the WoT is too big a catch-all and is too US-biased for Wikipedia, which should view things with a little more balance. Buckshot06(prof) 12:11, 22 February 2009 (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:Behavioral psychologists[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: merge into Category:Behaviourist psychologists. Contents may be pruned of articles as appropriate per discussion. See also related discussion immediately below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Behavioral psychologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - The term "Behavioral psychologist" is a little fuzzy, not sufficiently clearly-defined to support a workable category. In a general sort of way it refers to an orientation or approach to psychotherapy/counseling, but it's also used in a variety of other contexts, and therefore lends itself to misuse. Judging by the individuals who are in the category, it looks to me like the category's creator probably saw the terms "Behavioral scientist" and "psychologist" in the lede sentences of the articles and put them together as "Behavioral psychologist" -- a term which does not itself appear in any of the articles. Whatever the explanation, the three people who are listed have little in common, which bears out my contention that this really is not a useful category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have also solicited input from WikiProject Psychology. Cgingold (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Behaviorist psychologists, which I think is more inclusive & defensible grouping. It may be my own ignorance, but I do not understand the distinction. DGG (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not know of the existence of "behavioural psychologists" when I created "behaviourist psychologists" as a category on February 14, 2009. I certainly would support the two categories becoming merged, and I personally would prefer the term "behaviourist psychologist" and insist that this term is only used exclusively for those psychologists, such as John Broadus Watson, B.F. Skinner or Clark Leonard Hull, who were really were supporters of behaviourism. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re merging: The reason I proposed deletion rather than merging is because, with the possible exception of Alexandra W. Logue, there's no indication that the individuals in this category have anything to do with Behaviorism, the school of psychology referenced by the term "Behaviorist psychologists". Cgingold (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There certainly should be only one category, whether you call it merging or deletion of one. I think what we all seem to agree on is that the category generally should include psychologists identified with behaviorism. Some psychologists clearly fall in that category (e.g., Watson and Skinner). Others might require some discussion on the psychologist's talk page. But let's resolve the name of the category (and it looks to me like there is general consensus for "Behaviorist psychologists"), then thrash out the specifics of whom to include. Ward3001 (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically we are all on the same page here. Fortunately, there aren't a whole lot of articles in this category, since that would mean going through them one by one to decide where they go. This category will be deleted, and there's a possibility that the article on Alexandra W. Logue will end up being added to the other category. I'd like to know what ACEOREVIVED thinks about her, since he created that category. Cgingold (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the last comment by Cgingold, can I just clarify that I did NOT create a category called "behavioural psychologists" - the one I created was "behaviourist psychologists", which goes in the "Psychologists by School" category. About Alex Logue, I have to confess that I had never heard of this psychologist before getting involved in this debate. I think that in itself indicates that it may be questioned whether this individual is eminent enough for an entry in Wikipedia or any other encyclopaedia (but then again it might just be my ignorance) unlike psychologists such as B.F. Skinner or John Broadus Watson, or - perhaps more debatably Clark L. Hull or E.C. Tolman. The correct name for psychologists of this school is "behaviourist psychologists", so my preference has not changed - whether we call this a merge or a deletion, just have one category, "behaviourist psychologists", but make sure that this is populated by names such as B.F. Skinner or John Broadus Watson. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was precisely Category:Behaviourist psychologists that I was referring to when I said "will end up being added to the other category" followed by "since he [you] created that category". Again, we are on the same page as to which category is being kept and which deleted. Cgingold (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for Alexandra W. Logue, I had never heard of her before either -- however, that is also the case for dozens of other psychologists who have articles here on Wiki. Purely on the basis of the info presented in her fairly short article I would say that there is little doubt that she meets the Wiki standard for notability, and as such merits an article. One need not be "world famous" in one's field in order to meet that standard. Cgingold (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to every one who has expressed interest in this debate. Let us resolve what, as far as I perceive, generally seems to be consensus by way of summary: 1. There should only be one category; 2. I get the impression that consensus is that this should be called "Behaviourist psychologists", whether this is described as merging or deletion of one; 3. As User:Ward3001 suggests above,there are some psychologists, such as John Broadus Watson or B.F. Skinner, who should go here, whereas others may require discussion, but we can consider that once the issue has been resolved. As it seems to me the issue is almost resolved with near consensus,let us hope it is not too long before we have settled this one. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2009 (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:Behaviourist psychologists[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: keep as target of merge in discussion immediately above this one. There was some mention that the "u" should be dropped from the spelling of this category to conform with behaviorism/Category:Behaviorism, but I didn't really see a consensus for this change when the two discussions are read together—ACEOREVIVED for one repeatedly referred to "behaviourist" and "behaviourism". And seeing as how "behaviourist" is an acceptable spelling according to the main article, this may simply be a WP:ENGVAR issue that we shouldn't really change without a solid consensus for doing so. If there's still a desire to change the spelling I suggest a new CfD specifically to address this issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Behaviourist psychologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Redundant with existing Category:Behavioral psychologists. Ward3001 (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename to Category:Behaviorist psychologists, as that is consistent with its parent cat, Category:Behaviorism (which I just added as a parent). The two categories referred to as "Redundant" are in actuality quite disparate. Behaviorism is a well-defined school of psychology, and by extension Behaviorists -- or "Behaviorist psychologists" -- as proponents of that school, can be identified with sufficient accuracy to support categorization under that heading. The real issue is with Category:Behavioral psychologists, which is very problematic, imo, and probably should not have been parented under Category:Behaviorism. Cgingold (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - You say the categories "are in actuality quite disparate". What, specifically, are the difference between behavioral psychologist and behaviorist psychologists, since that is the basis for your "Keep" argument? Ward3001 (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my rationale for deletion of Category:Behavioral psychologists, directly above. I think that should help answer your question. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now it makes more sense. Your first statement in this section could have been interpreted that you were arguing that both "Behavioral psychologists" and "Behaviorist psychologists" should be kept. I'm fine with keeping one or the other, but not both. Ward3001 (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have solicited additional input from WikiProject Psychology. Cgingold (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as above. I think this is sufficientl ydistinctive; I am not a specialist in this subject, but I do not understand the distinction between the two categories.DGG (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above under "behavioural psychologists". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_15&oldid=1138392151"