Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12

< March 11	March 13 >

March 12[edit]

Category:Holocaust victims[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 13:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Holocaust victims to Category:People who died in The Holocaust

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is a subcategory for Category:Victims of Nazi German repressions and Category:People killed by the Third Reich. Yet victims doesn't necessarily means people who died - people who survived the Holocaust were also its victims (psychological damage, permanent injuries, etc. were common). Holocaust survivors were also Holocaust victims. See also my proposal below for similar renaming of the Category:Nazi concentration camp victims. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and move any victims who survived. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a valid set of historical information. If a subcategory of those who died is needed, then make the subcategory. Nothing to discuss here. Hmains (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read my nomination? The existing category name is confusing and needs to be renamed for clarity. Indeed, nothing more to discuss here.... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me be more clear. I think Category:Holocaust victims should be kept as the parent category of a new Category:People who died in The Holocaust (which would contain most of what is currently in Category:Holocaust victims) and of Category:Holocaust survivors. Category:Holocaust victims would also be the parent of articles/categories on groups that were victims (but which did not die or survice as people do). Hmains (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I see now. Yes, we need a parent category, and I think I agree with your suggestion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi: I would suggest the creation of Category:Holocaust victims who survived with sub-categories of Category:Survivors of Nazi concentration camps. Of course only for notable persons and they could easily be found among the many existing articles. IZAK (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi IZAK; see DGG comment below - I believe we already have the well-worded survivors categories.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I must have missed it. Better safe than sorry. IZAK (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Category name is ambiguous. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per Malik Shabbaz. Tymek (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Most people assume that the Holocaust victim is a person who died in the Holocaust, but I do not agree. All Jewish people in occupied Europe were victims, even those who did not die and somehow survived. They are called surviving victims of the Holocaust.--Jacurek (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename A good clarification. DGG (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Reasonable rationale. But also create and add Category:Holocaust victims who survived for those who lived on and became quite famous too, as much as the dead. IZAK (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE: There is a need to create categories for BOTH those who died as well as those who survived and lived by adding new categories for SURVIVORS of the Holocaust. If it is to be that Category:Holocaust victims and Category:Nazi concentration camp victims need to be sharpened, and in the process they are going to become categories only about people who DIED, as in Category:People who died in The Holocaust and Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps respectively, then in all fairness and following good logic and historiography, following that reasoning, there should now therefore be two categories: ONE for those who DIED and ONE for those notable survivors who LIVED such as Category:Holocaust victims who survived and Category:Survivors of Nazi concentration camps that would allow for that because both those who died and those who survived and lived, and who were/are of course notable, such as Elie Wiesel; Joel Teitelbaum; Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam and many others, and there are many others like this from many other groups, are important to world and Jewish history. It would be a great shame and travesty if those names were expunged only "because" they survived and escaped the fate the Nazis had wanted for them by having lived and not died in the Holocaust and/or the death and concentration camps. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we already have Category:Holocaust survivors as a subcategory of Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors. I think these serve the purpose you have in mind.DGG (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I hadn't seen it. Better safe than sorry. IZAK (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I find that we are creating our own terminology which is almost original research. We should take the nomenclature from either the United States Holocaust Museum or Yad Vashem or even the UN Holocaust commission. And we need editors to follow the accepted terms used in the outside world hard copy encyclopedias of the Holocaust. I disagree with Piotr Konieczny, Jacurek and DGG, that victim is ambiguous, becuase Yad Vashem and others only list those who died as victims. I find a original or minority thesis of certain editors, which while logical, is driving out good categories. Unfortunately in our age of victimology not only survivors but also second generation and entire communities call themselves victims of the Holocaust. Jewish and Christian organizations use the term Martyrs. Furthermore, in European History books, the Holocaust is a sub-set of the over 50 or 75 million killed in WWII, but in American books or the USHM those singled out for persecution Jews, gypsies, et al are treated differently than the massive number of deaths of the eastern front. instead of multiplying categories -pick the terms of one organization or hardcopy encyclopedia and stick with it--Jayrav (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to stop editors from creating new categories/subcats at any time. If names can be agreed to, any type of survivor category can be created and populated right now before anything gets lost. Hmains (talk) 02:24, 17 March 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:Nazi concentration camp victims[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 14:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nazi concentration camp victims to Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is a subcategory for Category:Victims of Nazi German repressions and Category:Prisoners who died in German detention. Yet victims doesn't necessarily means people who died - anybody who was imprisoned in those places was their victim (psychological damage, permanent injuries, etc. were common). This category should be clear, and become a subcategory of Category:Nazi concentration camps inmates (to be created), along with the existing Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors. See also my similar proposal above for renaming the Category:Holocaust victims. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and move any victims who survived to the appropriate cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a valid set of historical information. If a subcategory of those who died is needed, then make the subcategory. Nothing to discuss here. Hmains (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read my nomination? The existing category name is confusing and needs to be renamed for clarity. Indeed, nothing more to discuss here.... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi. I would suggest that Category:Survivors of Nazi concentration camps now be created so as not lose those who survived. Not only dead people are notable in this regard, there are many famous survivors of the camps. And it then becomes a sub-category of Category:Holocaust victims who survived. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Category name is ambiguous. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per Malik Shabbaz. Tymek (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename --Jacurek (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Reasonable rationale. But please also add in Category:Survivors of Nazi concentration camps for those whop lived to tell the tales and became quite famous too in many fields. IZAK (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE: There is a need to create categories for BOTH those who died as well as those who survived and lived by adding new categories for SURVIVORS of the Holocaust. If it is to be that Category:Holocaust victims and Category:Nazi concentration camp victims need to be sharpened, and in the process they are going to become categories only about people who DIED, as in Category:People who died in The Holocaust and Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps respectively, then in all fairness and following good logic and historiography, following that reasoning, there should now therefore be two categories: ONE for those who DIED and ONE for those notable survivors who LIVED such as Category:Holocaust victims who survived and Category:Survivors of Nazi concentration camps that would allow for that because both those who died and those who survived and lived, and who were/are of course notable, such as Elie Wiesel; Joel Teitelbaum; Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam and many others, and there are many others like this from many other groups, are important to world and Jewish history. It would be a great shame and travesty if those names were expunged only "because" they survived and escaped the fate the Nazis had wanted for them by having lived and not died in the Holocaust and/or the death and concentration camps. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename see my note above--Jayrav (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to stop editors from creating new categories/subcats at any time. If names can be agreed to, any type of survivor category can be created and populated right now before anything gets lost. Hmains (talk) 02:24, 17 March 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.

More To do 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: rename all. the wub "?!" 09:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:To do, unused to Category:Wikipedia pages with to-do lists, unused

Propose renaming Category:To do, by project to Category:Wikipedia pages with to-do lists, by project

Propose renaming Category:To do, Buffyverse to Category:Wikipedia pages with to-do lists, Buffyverse

Propose renaming Category:To do, The Who to Category:Wikipedia pages with to-do lists, The Who

Propose renaming Category:To do, trains to Category:Wikipedia pages with to-do lists, trains

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since Category:To do is going to be renamed, shouldn't these other 5 as well. WOSlinker (talk) 19:10, 12 March 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:Special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China[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. the wub "?!" 09:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete There are exactly only two Special Administrative Regions of the PRC. This category is extremely small with no potential for growth. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after looking at the category structure, I'm not sure where else these would go. The rest of China's administrative divisions are already divided up into categories for provinces and autonomous regions, and Hong Kong and Macau would not fit into those categories. If a better place can be suggested to me, I may reconsider. Also, as an aside, it is possible that this category could increase by one - if Taiwan was ever put under PRC jurisdiction, it would almost certainly be a special administrative region.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Equivalent categories to Category:Provinces of the People's Republic of China, Category:Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China, and Category:Municipalities of the People's Republic of China. These four groups make up the province-level subdivisions of PRC. Chanheigeorge (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good points raised by both Danaman5 and Chanheigeorge. But I have to ask - is it really necessary to have this category just because those other categories exist? What purpose does this category really serve if there are only two SARs? Both Hong Kong and Macau are linked with each other, and both of them are linked from Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Both cities are already categorised under Category:Cities in China. And there is no new SAR planned in the foreseeable future. There may never be any new SARs in China other than these two. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful if using categories for navigation (and we keep breaking that more and more for some reason (especially in entertainment based categories)), part of a categorization scheme. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 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.

Images[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. the wub "?!" 10:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Images of Bardstown to Category:Images of Bardstown, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Images of Denver to Category:Images of Denver, Colorado

Propose renaming Category:Images of Jeffersontown to Category:Images of Jeffersontown, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Images of Louisville to Category:Images of Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Civil War Images of Louisville to Category:Images of Louisville, Kentucky in the American Civil War

Propose renaming Category:Images of metropolitan Detroit to Category:Images of Metro Detroit

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Cincinnati to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose merging Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Cleveland to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Cleveland, Ohio (overwrite redirect)

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Indianapolis to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Indianapolis, Indiana

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Louisville to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Louisville, Kentucky

Propose merging Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Nashville to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Nashville, Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New Orleans to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New Orleans, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Omaha to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Pittsburgh to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in St. Louis to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in St. Louis, Missouri

Nominator's rationale: For conformity with "City, State." Category:Civil War Images of Louisville is a subcategory of Category:Images of Kentucky in the American Civil War.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and recent precedents in many cfds. Occuli (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need to add state to categories of prominent U.S. cities; it is stupid to do so.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. It is the US local standard to name its city articles and categories in 'city, state' format. This is part of the process of ensuring that all such are named so.

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.

Gangs[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. the wub "?!" 10:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Detroit gangs to Category:Gangs in Detroit, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Gangs in Chicago to Category:Gangs in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Gangs in San Francisco to Category:Gangs in San Francisco, California

Propose renaming Category:Historical gangs of San Francisco to Category:Historical gangs of San Francisco, California

Propose renaming Category:Historical gangs of New Orleans to Category:Historical gangs of New Orleans, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Historical gangs of Detroit to Category:Historical gangs of Detroit, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Historical gangs of Baltimore to Category:Historical gangs of Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Historical gangs of Chicago to Category:Historical gangs of Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Defunct gangs of New York City to Category:Historical gangs of New York City

Propose renaming Category:Organized crime in Chicago to Category:Organized crime in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Riots in Philadelphia to Category:Riots and civil unrest in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: For conformity with "City, State." Not sure why "Gangs" are "in" and "Historical gangs" are "of," though. The last one is a subcategory of Category:Riots and civil unrest in the United States.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and recent precedents in many cfds. Occuli (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but the "historical gangs" ones seem to be essentially "former" categories, and should just be renamed or merged to the applicable "gang" categories. (This could be proposed after this CfD, though.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind dealing with this now. I think it's reasonable to have a "Defunct" status for organizations, and gangs fit that category, so I'm okay with the historical designation. But others may not be.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a thought I had—I can see that perhaps there's some utility to the division, and no one else seems terribly troubled by it, so I'm fine to keep them for now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom so that readers do not have to guess what city is being discussed or what state it is in. Readers come to WP to learn; WP should not assume the readers already 'know'. Keep the distinction of having historical gang categories. In this case, though not well defined, 'historical' means something more than 'defunct', as shown by the contents of the categories. Hmains (talk) 18:34, 13 March 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:Carlisle Indian Industrial School[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. Kbdank71 14:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is too small; has only two pages, little potential for expansion.--Parkwells (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no need for this category.[I'm reconsidering, see below.] Cgingold (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Category needed some attention. I've added three more articles and expect there are a couple more out there. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Carlisle had a football team that was one of the most innovative in history; Jim Thorpe is an alum; Pop Warner was a coach there. There are four articles right there... There are now 9 pages in the cat. Strikehold (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - to Category:Carlisle Indian Industrial School alumni and weed out/recategorize any articles that are not for alumni. The school itself doesn't need a category but per the college/university alumni category structure an alumni category is appropriate. The few articles that are not for alumni are accessible through the school's article. Otto4711 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & Questions - In light of all the work that's been done to find more articles, I've struck through my initial "Delete" comment. Good job, guys! (Sometimes this is what it takes to get things to happen... ) At this point I'm looking at a couple of questions:

Given that most of the new articles appear to be for people who played football at Carlisle, do we want/need both a category for alums and also a category for players (which is also a pretty standard sort of category)?
Are there other small colleges (with few articles) that have categories for alums or players, but not a parent cat for the college? If so, is there a reason for this college not to be treated similarly?

Cgingold (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Carlisle Indian Industrial School alumni per Otto4711. If there is a need for a separate football player category that can be created at a later time. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An Alumni category would exclude Warner, Woodruff, McCormick, and Hickok who were football coaches. It would also exclude Pratt who founded the school. I would be open to a Category:Carlisle Indian Industrial School people (similar to Category:Cornell University people). 09er (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The coaches should go into a subcat of Category:College football coaches, not in a general category for the school. Otto4711 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Category is up to 28 articles now. I believe this demonstrates viability. This isn't the first example I've seen where a category would make sense, but its articles hadn't been categorized simply because the category didn't exist yet. DeFaultRyan (talk) 20:50, 17 March 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.

Religion[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, delete last two. the wub "?!" 10:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Religion in Baltimore to Category:Religion in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Religion in Chicago to Category:Religion in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Religion in Cincinnati to Category:Religion in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Religion in Los Angeles to Category:Religion in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Religion in Louisville to Category:Religion in Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Religion in Philadelphia to Category:Religion in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Religion in Pittsburgh to Category:Religion in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Christianity in Baltimore to Category:Christianity in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Christianity in Chicago to Category:Christianity in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Christianity in Cincinnati to Category:Christianity in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Christianity in Los Angeles to Category:Christianity in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Christianity in Louisville to Category:Christianity in Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Christianity in Philadelphia to Category:Christianity in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Christianity in Pittsburgh to Category:Christianity in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Jews and Judaism in Chicago to Category:Jews and Judaism in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Jews and Judaism in Cincinnati to Category:Jews and Judaism in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Jewish day schools in Chicago to Category:Jewish day schools in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Private schools in Chicago to Category:Private schools in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Private schools in Baltimore to Category:Private schools in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Private schools in Baltimore County to Category:Private schools in Baltimore County, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Former private schools in Chicago to Category:Defunct private schools in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Religious leaders from Cincinnati to Category:Religious leaders from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Religious figures from Pittsburgh to Category:Religious leaders from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose deleting Category:Private day schools in Chicago

Propose deleting Category:Jewish schools in Chicago

Nominator's rationale: Conformity with "City, State." I left all Archdioceses and the like alone, figuring those were complete names of designations. The two Religious people categories are outliers, and there doesn't seem to be a standard format, so I chose one. The Private day schools category just holds one subcategory, and has no obvious analogs, so I suggest deleting that. The last two categories are now empty, as I have moved the one item they held up one level to bypass those two categories. (Obviously, if the last two are kept, they should gain an "Illinois".)--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: most per recent precedent and the religious ones per the well-developed structure of Category:Religious leaders contrasted with that of Category:Religious figures (which should be cfd'd as too vague) [Ha! Pastor Wayne aka EstherLois strikes again.] I would prefer an upmerge nom (to eg Category:Jewish schools) instead of the straight 'delete's. Occuli (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per that request, I've upmerged them, since this only required feeding Category:Jewish day schools in Chicago into extant categories one level higher. So now those two are empty.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I think Category:Jewish day schools in Chicago should not be renamed but upmerged to Category:Jewish day schools (which has no other city subcats), Category:Private schools in Chicago and Category:Jews and Judaism in Chicago. Occuli (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. Readers come here to WP to learn, not to guess where the cities are. Hmains (talk) 18:43, 13 March 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:Digital Revolution[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. Is also re-created material that was previously deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Unlike the earlier discussion, there is an article at Digital Revolution but again, the category contains a number of articles that don't even mention the term at all. I really don't see much other than OR as to what qualifies. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This category has 6 interwikis, keep - Vald (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category does not seem to be at all clearly defined: articles seem to be put into it at whim. I also don't see why the number of interwikis is a reason for keeping it: if the category is valid, it is valid for reasons which would apply with or without interwikis. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 6 interwikis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiramisoo (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion means the category is OR, SUBJ, POV, and useless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep For anyone who knows about the subject or wants to learn, the contents are clear and well chosen. Hmains (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clear? Ok, why Adobe Photoshop but not Microsoft Windows (Microsoft, Unix, Linux or Apple Inc.? Is photoshop that much more a significant part of the digital change than the operating systems? In fact, why isn't even basic things like transistor, the computer there? The article Digital Revolution seems more like a synthesis than anything coherent enough for a category to be based off. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clean up categories, edit the articles. I did some; others can do more. Categories are collections of decisions made by many article editors with no review other than subsequent article editors. This is part of what WP is about. Hmains (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, what basis is there? It seems random and arbitrary and subject to the whims of everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inclusion in this category is somewhat arbitrary and essentially a matter of original research. Robofish (talk)
Keep - fix, but keep GodivaCake (talk)
Delete No objective criteria, OR, etc. And sorry guys, but I am not at all convinced that GodivaCake (talk · contribs) and Tiramisoo (talk · contribs) are different editors. Maybe I'd better take this up elsewhere. dougweller {(talk) 17:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yep, CU confirms they are the same. dougweller (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Tiramisoo remove the AFD notice here as keep, but I've reverted until an uninvolved admin decides. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 17 March 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:Sikh names[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. Kbdank71 14:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Only two entries. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found two other articles that ought to be in the category, so there are four entries in the category now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:47, 12 March 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:Sikh communities[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: upmerge. the wub "?!" 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one entry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to the parents Category:Sikhs and Category:Communities. Occuli (talk) 21:21, 17 March 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:American knights[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Not a meaningful category. The United States government has never had an order of knighthood. The category was recently populated by only four people. Three of them were Aruban baseball players who have played for baseball teams in the U.S., but who received knighthoods from the Netherlands and are not identified in their articles as being U.S. citizens. They have been re-assigned to the newly created Category:Dutch knights, which, surprisingly, did not exist before. The fourth person was a U.S. citizen who received a Papal knighthood in the Order of St. Gregory the Great. He has been re-assigned to the newly created Category:Knights of the Holy See. Hence, the category now has no members. For this category to have any chance of becoming meaningful, it would need to be substantially re-created with a newly explained purpose. I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not meaningful. And someone just added Ted Kennedy to it which is silly. There's already a Category:Recipients of Honorary British Knighthoods for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & sorry, Sir Ted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Repopulate and Rename -- to Category:American people with foreign knighthoods, which would cover a number of others with honorary british knightoods. This refers to a series of notable awards. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to the new category as proposed by Peterkingiron. That category can be created now if people want to do so; doing so will not affect the deletion of Category:American knights. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, oppose renaming. Peterkingiron's proposal would create a precedent for a whole swathe of categories of people who have received awards or honours from foreign states, which would lead to any such award triggering two categories on the relevant articles. Articles such as Ted Kennedy are heavily enough categorised as it is, and we don't need two categories for something like this which is a consequence of his notability, not a reason for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - are there any instances in which a person is even notable, much less defined, by being an American who's received an honorary British knighthood? People receive these knighthoods because of the things they have done (which are likely defining). A sourced list would if done right likely be a candidate for Featured List status but a category is not the way to go. Otto4711 (talk) 01:49, 17 March 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:United States Presidential controversies[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) 06:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:United States presidential administration controversies. The primary reason for this change is to bring the parent cat into conformity with all of its sub-cats; in addition, the current name suggests that the contents all pertain to controversies that directly involved the president. Cgingold (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match the subcats. Odd that only the recent presidents and Harding have had controversies; I guess the good ole days really were. Not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and to make clear that these controversies aren't necessarily all about the Presidents themselves. Robofish (talk) 04:46, 15 March 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:SOA-related products[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 expand acronym, no consensus on deletion. Kbdank71 14:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SOA-related products to Category:Service-oriented architecture related products

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Categorization by a currently popular buzzword. Compare with "internet enabled" hype attached to everything decade ago. For example Tuxedo: these middleware libraries did well in unchanged form long before the SOA hype and will be used long after the term fades out. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:35, 16 March 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:Bearberries[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 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete At present this category contains only three articles (and some redirects). There are only three species of bearberry, so there is little scope for this category to grow beyond four articles. The article bearberry serves well as a navigational hub for the topic. I suggest this category be upmerged to Category:Arctostaphylos and Category:Berries. Hesperian 00:32, 12 March 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.