Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 29 October 31 >

October 30[edit]

Rename' Category:Places of worship in Dublin to Category:Places of worship in Dublin City[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale'. The contents of the category includes churches and mosques in the city of Dublin which is the capital city of Ireland. A category also exists called Category:Places of worship in County Dublin. There is a danger that Places of worship in Dublin will be confused with Places of worship in County Dublin. Many non Irish would fail to see the distinction. "County Dublin" was a former area of local government in the Republic of Ireland. It was abolished by legislation in 1994. The area now known as the Dublin Region (an official EU designation), would have encompassed the area of the former county. The Dublin Region is now split into 3 administrative counties with Dublin City Council having authority in the fourth part with a standing in law equal to that of the other 3 county councils. All of the articles in the Category:Places of worship in Dublin are confirned to the area under the authority of Dublin City Council. It contains no articles that relate to places of worship in any of the other 3 county councils. In fact, each of these counties has its own category. For example, Category:Places of worship in Fingal County, Category:Places of worship in South Dublin County, Category:Places of worship in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County. Only Dublin City itself lacks a comparable category. While there is folk memory of County Dublin" and the term is still in common usage, that is no reason to prevent the official position of things taking their proper status. In any event, the generic category of Religion in County Dublin is still in existance and can cater for those religious entities not covered by geography. Places of worship is not so retricted - churches are either in a specific place or they are not. If they're in Dublin City then they are not in County Dublin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The category for the city is Category:Dublin. The only one that adds "city" does it through a disambiguator: Category:People from Dublin (city). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This would not be the only case where categories had a disambiguator and the main article did not. Birmingham categories have "Birmingham, England", so prevent their being mispopulated for Birmingham, AL. I would suggest that "County Dublin" categories should normally be parent-only ones, with articles, being categorised under the City or the three successor counties. This should mean that "Dublin" categories will refer to the city; those for places in the old county will at best appear under County Dublin and (better still) under the successor counties. Accordingly there is no need for a change. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification please. By the rationale above, any article in the cat of Dublin or in any sub-cat of that cat, should only relate to the city. Is that correct? So any article in the cat that was in South Dublin County, ought to be moved to the appropriate sub-cat for that county. Is that correct? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GO. It is far more likely that non-Irish people will think "Dublin City" is somewhere completely different from Dublin. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per standard usage in category space and article space of Category:Dublin and Dublin. No reason for just this one to be different. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2010 (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:African First Ladies[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: Relist, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 9. Dana boomer (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:African First Ladies to Category:Spouses of national leaders
Nominator's rationale: Merge. An unncescary diffusion. I don't see this as analogous to splitting politicians by continent because these first ladies are almost entirely notable for being the wife of a leader.TM 21:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query: Would Spouses of national leaders include Queens? If so, they would not be First Ladies. Laurel Lodged (talk)
  • Oppose -- Rename (if at all) to Category:Spouses of African national leaders. There are enough countries in Africa for it to be appropriate to have a continental category. Laurel Lodged's query is probably immaterial as there are few national kingdoms in Africa. I think there is at least one lady president, so that her husband (if she has one) would be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2010 (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:Samurai anime[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: Relist, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 9. Dana boomer (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Samurai anime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Chanbara anime and manga. All articles listed in this category are already listed in the Chanbara category. Also doesn't follow the standard naming convention of anime and manga categories. See Category:Anime and manga by topic and Category:Anime and manga by genre. —Farix (t | c) 19:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that they're all listed in the other category is wrong for starters. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2010 (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.

Air[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: To disambiguate, as there is also Air (Japanese band), Air (jazz group) and Air (1970s band). Although the main article is Air (band), renaming the categories directly after the article would still leave them too ambiguous to be of any use. — ξxplicit 18:38, 30 October 2010 (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:Muslim atheists[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Muslim atheists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: What? Dry water? Male Woman? Soporific Coffee? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note Category:Jewish atheists. The argument goes that "Muslim" is not solely or necessarily a religious designator (at least not in the metaphysical sense), but a cultural one. I don't think the articles in this category are appropriately categorised, but that need not rule out the category altogether. Skomorokh 18:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nono. Jews (whether you like it or not) have seen themselves as a people/ethnicity. I checked, there is no category "Christian atheists", and no-one has ever argued or asserted that Muslim is "a people" or "an ethnicity". You want a better rationale: This category will always be empty. Find me a cited quote from one person, who, in his or her own words said "I am a Muslim atheist" or, at about the same time in his or life said "I am a Muslim" and "I am an atheist." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat mystified by this comment. What is it you think the cultural Muslim article denotes? I have several non-believing friends who will be quite surprised to learn they are no longer Muslims by rule of Wikipedia editor Seb az86556... Skomorokh 14:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will they be notable enough to be on wikipedia? Probably not. Then what do we need the category for? As for the main article, it's based on one book and is tagged for containing original research. So... does one book justify a catgegory of its own? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One book? I would hope that your research on the topic extended beyond the Wikipedia article, Seb. Skomorokh 15:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. This was discussed just a month ago. Although the proposal was a rename, delete suggestions were brought up, which ended up as no consensus. There may be no Category:Christian atheists, but there is such a thing as Christian atheism. Lastly, emptying the category while it is being discussed at CFD is out of process (the {{cfd}} tag reads: Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress). — ξxplicit 19:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I emptied it per WP:BLP. None of the people listed said this about themselves; therefore, it has to be removed. (note that I also removed Swedish atheists in one case) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will re-add the article Cultural Muslim. Point taken, that's not a BLP-issue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that this is not an oxymoron as some of you suggest. However, a Muslim atheist would be liable to be identified as an apostate, and liable to being murdered (without penalty) but diligent Muslims, whose actions would be regarded as pleasing to Allah. Self-identifcation inot this category would thus be dangerous, just as converts from Islam to Christianity are regularly murdered as apostates. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be true of some parts of the world, but there are many places where that would not be the case. In fact, one could argue that in the states it would be safer to self identify as an atheist muslim. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Different from Jewish atheist in that, while someone can be religiously atheist and ethnically Jewish, there is no such ethnicity for Muslims. Our own article on cultural Muslim says such atheist people merely "identify" with Muslim culture. This does not make them a Muslim. Perhaps a rename to Category:Atheists who identify with Muslim culture would be a technically more accurate name without need of deletion, but I fail to see why categorizing such such a category junction is helpful, so I would go with deletion. VegaDark (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone is suggesting that "Muslim" is an ethnicity to the extent that "Jew" is, but the cultural reach of Islam extends far beyond those who accept its ontological claims. There's a significant difference between "Atheists who identify with Muslim culture" and the "Atheists who culturally identify as Muslim" we are discussing here. Whether or not there are enough articles on those people to justify a category is a matter for further research, but the intersection is certainly substantive. Skomorokh 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would still say that "culturally identifying as x" does not make that person "x", whether x be "Muslim", "Russian", or "African-American". If I am to understand correctly, using your rationale (using stereotypical examples to get my point across), an American who eats potatoes, drinks vodka, and speaks Russian in an effort to "culturally identify" with Russians would be Russian, which I think we can all agree isn't the case. I see no difference when we substitute in the Muslim religion. Per our very own articles, according to our page on Muslim, "A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Islam", while according to our page on Jews, "Jewish people are a nation and ethnoreligious group". The day you get consensus to describe muslims on that page as an ethnic group is the day I would support keeping this category. VegaDark (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 30#Category:Muslim atheists. I noticed since that discussion was held someone appear to have beeen hard at work removing content from the category. // Liftarn (talk)
  • Rename? to Category:Cultural Muslims. The combination of "Muslim" and "atheist" is rather odd, so why not use the common term (I'm assuming this based on the naming of the main article) for this particular identity? -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll still need to find enough quotes by notable people who identified themselves as such. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if the category remains unpopulated due to an absence of reliable sources which identify individuals as cultural Muslims, then it should be deleted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My main point exactly; somebody created a category, rammed a bunch of people into it. I went through all the articles, none of them said anything like that about these individuals; in fact, it took a whole lot of WP:SYNTH to even come to the assumption. Thus, it's like having Category:People who ate reindeer-meat in Chukchiland on the eve of WWII. Yes, there probably were such people. All previous discussions were along the lines of "is it possible that there were people who ate reindeer-meet in Chukchiland on the eve of WWII? What do you mean, "no"? I've heard of someone who did! My friend's grandfather saw it! And why shouldn't there have been such people?" Indeed. Logic even dictates that there most definitely were such people; it's as easy as 1 + 1. For adding it as a category to an actual person, however, we can't do the math, we still need a source that unambiguously says "2". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's makes a lot of sense for the current situation. Delete, but without prejudice to creating Category:Cultural Muslims iff there are articles which can legitimately (i.e., consistent with reliable sources) be placed in the category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2010 (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:Genius[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. Mindmatrix 14:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Genius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a newly created category, to which some one is rapidly adding entries. No doubt some of the people added were very skilled in particualr fields, but Ultimately this till be a point of view category. It will probably also become an unmanageably vast one, as more and more people are added, on the basis that some one kudges them to qualify. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE:The CFD notice has now been removed 12 times in less than an hour by the creator & an ISP. Both should be blocked. Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (edit conflict, I was just about to nominate this too.) Entirely subjective and evaluative. It's already being populated with various composers, writers, and visual artists, based largely on personal opinions, e.g. not everyone thinks Richard Wagner is a genius. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, everyone thinks Wagner was a genius, or should, but the term is so completely undefined as to be meaningless. Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rossini didn't think Wagner was a genius, which is probably why he isn't in the category. Humph!;-) Incidentally, I see that Bill Gates is now right up there with Messers Wagner, Plato and Einstein. Oops! No he's not. Someone's just removed him, probably Steve Jobs. Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unspecified and apparently completely subjective criteria. A reliable source could probably be found for inclusion of the majority of composers, chess grandmasters, artists, inventors, rock stars, billionaires. And all geniuses are male, it appears. Ewulp (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Same reasons--impossible to ever neutrally determine inclusion, particularly for dead people. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No chance of this ever complying with WP:NPOV. Oh, and apparently the first candidate for the "genius" category (back in March) was the South Korean footballer Kim Hyung-Ho. --Folantin (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete - here after trying to nominate it myself, obviously not the only person with that idea. Completely subjective category: there's no definition of "genius" that people agree on, and even if a definition's agreed measuring or judging it is very subjective and arbitrary.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per everyone above. Nothing more to say really.4meter4 (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Ewelp etc. Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above; invites the silly season. hgilbert (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have been watching the Genius main article page for at least four months, and it has had many sourcing problems and inconsistencies in treatment of its topic. Having a category on genius will only make these problems worse and, yes, be a magnet for point-of-view pushing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per all the above. No objective criteria. As for silly season, that's perennial. We'd soon have subcats for "evil" and "flawed". Btw, the Genius article's on my to-do list, which is long. Have at it. Haploidavey (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Genii, which would be the natural supercat to (at least) Category:Genii loci. (I suppose that exists and is well populated.) Ian Spackman (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'd be difficult, and I'd advise against it. Genius (mythology) is a conundrum anyway, despite what its article might say - that too needs work. As a "category", genius locus is quite modern, and too loose to be useful; various deities act as genii locii, some seem to act as such (maybe). Others are assumed to act as such because in Roman religion, deities tend to be located at their place of cult. Haploidavey (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. I have reverted (and rolled back) those entries added by Saruha where the text does not mention this "property". Also left a a message on talk page. I did the same with 88.73.177.243 (talk · contribs). - DVdm (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking objective criteria. Hopelessly POV putting some people in this category and others not. Antandrus (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real inclusion criteria. By the way, Saruha is actually a sockpuppet of User:Fox53 but he has been quite well behaved lately, so I didn't want to say anything. Looks like he is, sadly, falling back into old habbits! He is around a fair bit on other IP addresses, too. Calistemon (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless, and an obvious occasion for endless revert wars. Paul B (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no encylopaedic purpose, will always be POV, and will waste enormous amounts of everyone's time (as at present)--Smerus (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2010 (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:Most-populated city neighbourhoods of India[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. — ξxplicit 20:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Most-populated city neighbourhoods of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete.The description of what this category is proposed to be inclusive of would seem to be sufficient . Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suburbs and neighborhoods of Indian cities can be categorized by population. Some of them or densely and over populated while others have normal population. So creating this category was for awareness about thick population in urban areas of India. In fact, after the name of suburb or neighborhood, name of the concerned city also should be displayed. Eg: Dharavi, Mumbai. But provision to this is not provided. Request reconsider the case and not delete this category.--UtharaMalabar (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this needs to be a sourced list (if anything). As a category it suffers from: arbitrary inclusion criteria, POV, OR etc. Occuli (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- (1) Where is the density limit set on what should be included? The limit can only be POV, unless there is some official list (2) Neighbourhoods typically do not have precise boundaries, so that where one stops measuring is POV. Accordingly the criteria for inclusion (or otherwise) is an arbitrary one. We might possibly listify. This will enable the creator (and others) to add columns for the city, the population and population density. This can only be done in an article, not a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2010 (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:Great Basin Divide border landforms of Nevada[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. — ξxplicit 20:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Great Basin Divide border landforms of Nevada to Category:Great Basin Divide
Propose merging Category:Great Basin Divide border landforms of Utah to Category:Great Basin Divide (added 22:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC))
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Parent category is not over populated and this represents a quadruple intersection. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2010 (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:Sari[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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sari to Category:Sari, Iran
Propose renaming Category:Sport in Sari to Category:Sport in Sari, Iran
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Sari, Iran. Sari is a garment and the term is otherwise ambiguous. As a place, there is also Sari, Nepal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the nomination from "Itan" to "Iran", becasue of an obvious typo. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- needs to match the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article and to more clearly describe the content of the categories. Alansohn (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match parent article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:58, 4 November 2010 (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:K-9[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. — ξxplicit 20:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:K-9 to Category:K-9 (TV series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose renaming to match main article K-9 (TV series). K-9 is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2010 (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:Political film awards[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: Relist, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 9. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Political film awards to Category:Political Film Society
Nominator's rationale: As someone who works quite a lot in the film area, I was surprised to stumble across this category. What, I wondered, are these "political" film awards? They turn out to be all articles about the Political Film Society and its various awards. I suggest renaming so as to accurately reflect the contents of this category, after which we could also re-categorize as a subcat of Category:Human rights awards, alongside such comparable (imo) political/human rights media categories as Category:GLAAD Media Awards, as well as Category:Film awards and Category:Political films. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per nom. PC78 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and I'd certainly add all the categories from the main article, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and then Delete -- This is what we almost always do for awards categories. Lists do the job much better as they can list them in date order and have a column for the citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peter's left a message on my Talk page expanding a bit on this rationale. He may well be right that the vast majority of awards categories are overcategorization and if so, I've been one of the guilty parties. I'd have no objection to listifying. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2010 (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:Hearst_family_(newspapers)[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. There are many proposals and counterproposals in this dicussion. However, despite the relisting, there is no consensus that has appeared. If necessary, discuss this somewhere else and then bring back to CFD when a solid proposal can be made.. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Hearst family (newspapers) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:Hearst family to Category:Hearst newspaper dynasty
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Merged into Category:Hearst_family, which had most of the Hearst newspaper dynasty. Hearst_family_(newspapers) had only two, and they've been moved. Category now empty. John Nagle (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Hearst_family_(newspapers)" contained not newspapers, but two members of the Hearst family, descendants of William Randoph Hearst. The other family members were in Category:Hearst_family. The split was arbitrary; some of the William Randoph Hearsts (there's a I, a II, and a III) were in one category, and some were in the other. --John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are still valid. Category:Hearst Corporation publications is a mix of newspapers and magazines categorized into the newspaper tree. By re population from Category:Hearst Corporation publications we can clean up some categorization problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about creating Category:Hearst Corporation newspapers under Category:Hearst Corporation publications and moving the newspapers down a level. --John Nagle (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with that. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 00:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_30&oldid=1211535794"