Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19

Category:Raine's School

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a hoax ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since all articles in cat are currently being snowballed. Luna Santin 01:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:IPod

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:IPods. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a redundant category. Luna Santin 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. David Kernow 01:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redundant RainbowCrane | Talk 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to eliminate redundancy. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Jim Carrey films

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete G4. Sango 123 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_3#Category:Jim_Carrey_films. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as repost, per CSD G4. Luna Santin 01:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cancelled albums

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cancelled albums into Category:Unreleased albums

Merge, "Cancelled" and "unreleased" seems to me to be substantially the same thing. kingboyk 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --musicpvm 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Very sensible.--Mike Selinker 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Unreleased albums, since it seems the more general of the two and isn't overpopulated at this time. Luna Santin 01:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:"100 Greatest Cartoons"

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No context given about who named the 100 greatest cartoons so this category seems pretty POV. And of the 100 greatest cartoons, only one is listed in this category. Metros232 19:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if context was given, these "greatest" lists do not belong in categories. --musicpvm 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BoojiBoy 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 23:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context; if it is based off an actual list, I'd say maybe listify, but there's only one item, so... Luna Santin 01:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article to which I imagine this refers is 100 Greatest Cartoons, but Music is, I think, altogether correct that a category ought to be disfavored for such a list as this. Joe 04:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carina22 10:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Greatest" and "best" lists should not be made into categories. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Bob 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedians by birth

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated except for Users born in Czechoslovakia (no consensus) --Kbdank71 14:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly fine set of categories, with a couple hiccups:

I left category:Happy Birthday! alone because it's harmless, elegantly named, and probably contains some very sophisticated architecture I don't want to disrupt. The Czech one seems odd, but there are no other parallel categories and the user in question is Slovak, not Czech. And before judging the "non-stereotypical" one, I encourage folks to check out how big it is.--Mike Selinker 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the second and third into Category:Hungarian Wikipedians and Category:Filipino Wikipedians respectively for consistency with all other subcats of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity. --musicpvm 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be OK with that, but let's see if anyone objects.--Mike Selinker 19:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Users born in Czechoslovakia category. It is meant for both Slovak and Czech Wikipedians, as most of them (all who are over 13) were actually born in Czechoslovakia, not in the respective successor countries. I was inspired by some T-shirts I've seen in both countries, so I thought is was kind of a cool idea for a wiki category, since it reflects the common ancestry of both countries, which many people identify with. It's only been around for a week or so, so I'd give it some more time to fill with people. PeterRet 10:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your intention. Unfortunately, its unique nomenclature may encourage category:Wikipedians born in Canada, category:Wikipedians born in Mexico, etc., and these are all covered by their existing "X Wikipedians" category. It would need to become category:Czechoslovakian Wikipedians to avoid this problem. I've fixed the nomination to reflect this.--Mike Selinker 15:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, well, it's better, but to me, there is a difference between countries like Mexico, which still exist, and countries like Czechoslovakia, which do not -- to me a Czechoslovak Wikipedian means someone, who identifies him/herself as a member of the Czechoslovak nation or the citizen of the country of Czechoslovakia (none of which exists). A user born in Czechoslovakia to me expresses more the feeling of "we were born there, it was cool, it was fun, great memories of our childhood, we have a lot in common, let's have a beer (Slovaks and Czechs), BUT we've moved on" -- I'm not sure if the point is clear. This distinction, however can be quite subjective, so I'm open to other opinions. Where you have a point, though, is that we could start getting categories like Users born in Yugoslavia or Users born in the USSR (and I can't really think of any more). The question is if we want them around or not. All in all, I think I could live with a category named like this (as long as the template can have the same text as it does now ;-)), but I'd prefer the old one. What do you think? Thanks and take care :-), Peter, PeterRet 07:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Rename the second and third categories as proposed by musicpvm since that is consistent with other category names. Rename all others as nominated. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fixed.--Mike Selinker 15:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say delete non-stereotypical teenage Wikipedians. What is a stereotype teenager? Is a starving Zimbabwean teenager non stereotypical? What stereotype? Does it mean non-emo, non-goth, non-chav? What? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure, but the fact that six hundred teenage Wikipedians think they need to call themselves this makes me not want to mess with it much.--Mike Selinker 16:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- General support, but maybe we could rename it category:Wikipedians born in pre-division Czechoslovakia. --M @r ē ino 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is an existing category called Category:Czech Wikipedians. Would that be the same thing as Category:Czechoslovakian Wikipedians? If so, the categories should be merged. Other than that, I generally support these nominations. --Cswrye 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, not the same. Czechoslovakia was a country, which in 1993 split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. See the long comment above. PeterRet 06:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Dark ambient

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was found deleted --Kbdank71 14:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The category is a cross-namespace redirect to Dark ambient. There is only one article in this category and that article doesn't seem to be a notable band (and has been tagged for speedy deletion). Metros232 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; also a vague name. David Kernow 01:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fort Worthians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:People from Fort Worth (and in line with previous similar cfds I will leave a cat redirect). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fort Worthians to Category:People from Fort Worth, Texas

Rename, per convention. Golfcam 18:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, I don't think it's necessary to disambiguate with "Texas" in this case though. Category:People from Fort Worth would be enough. --musicpvm 19:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per musicpvm. - EurekaLott 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Keeps it in line with other categories. Maltmomma ^(chat) 12:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per musicpvm.-choster 15:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per musicpvm. — Dale Arnett 04:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedians by politics

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is there a category for pro-monarchist Wikipedians?? Rhyddfrydol 21:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Please look down about 16 lines.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two main formats here: “X Wikipedians” for parties and basic ideologies, and “Wikipedians who support/oppose X” for things and concepts. This is potentially contentious, so please assume good faith.--Mike Selinker 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, with a couple thoughts:
- category:Wikipedian USA-Germany to category:Wikipedians who support German-American relations.
- category:Supporters of the Troops should be up for deletion. It doesn't specify which country's troops (USA is presumed), and doesn't specify how those troops are being supported (actions in Iraq, for example?)
- Several others of those listed above may also be cantidates for deletion - Jc37 18:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed the German-American one. I think the "troops" one is a uniquely American ideology--support those serving in the military without making a claim on whether you support their commander in chief. I'm not inclined to delete any of these in this nomination, though, because then we encourage a "well, if I can't have mine then you can't have yours" fight.--Mike Selinker 18:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Understandable. In the meantime, then, I suggest: category:Wikipedians who support the US troops. - Jc37 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fixed. Thanks.--Mike Selinker 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        what about a category for Wikipedians opposed to the illegal war in Iraq and its chaotic and invetible conclusion? Rhyddfrydol 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This exists: category:Wikipedians who oppose the Iraq War. Rhyddfrydol, please look at the categories before you post. Thanks.--Mike Selinker 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General support of most renaming. Incidentally, while we're at it, what is the distinction between category:Queer Supportive Wikipedians (to be renamed category:Queer-Supportive Wikipedians) and category:LGBT SOFFA (to be renamed category:Wikipedians who support the LGBT community)? Could these be merged into a single category while this renaming is going on, or would that be an additional unnecessary complication? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any difference, but this is an area where I figure it'd be good to tread carefully. (It certainly seems that the Queer Supportive name was carefully thought through, as evidenced by the "thanks" on the page.) I'd be interested to know if anyone in the category feels one way or another.--Mike Selinker 19:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what it's worth, I used to be in the "Queer Supportive Wikipedians" category myself before I removed all my political and religious userboxes and replaced them with a bit of text on my user page, per Jimbo's request from a while back; and I think that having two categories is redundant. (I don't much care which name predominates, though.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I posted a comment on those talk pages, Category talk:Queer Supportive Wikipedians and Category talk:LGBT SOFFA.--Mike Selinker 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, no one has responded, so I'm siding with Josiah and changing the nomination to propose that they unite into category:Wikipedians who support the LGBT community. Other comments still welcome.--Mike Selinker 20:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General support for renaming, but Strongly Oppose the very POV-sounding "Democrat Wikipedians". Use of "Democrat" as an adjective is advocated by some people who oppose the party, and has come to be seen as an indicator of bias. If "Democratic (US) Wikipedians" is thought to be unclear, then the existing name should be retained. Kestenbaum 19:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's unclear as Democratic. Fixed.--Mike Selinker 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am a democrat, but since I live in the United Kingdom I cannot be a Democrat - has anyone thought about this, or are only American politics worthy of Wikipedia? Rhyddfrydol 21:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please take a look at the categories. There is a category:Democratic Wikipedians (those who support democracy), just like there's a category:Wikipedian monarchists.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support including the word "Wikipedian" in all cases. Chicheley 23:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- While "Democrat/Republican wikipedian" sounds right, for other countries using the political party as an adjactive just doesn't sound right. For example "Likud wikipeidans" or "Meretz-Yachad Wikipedians" soudnds wrong and the meaning also isn't clear, unlike the current clear phrasig of"Wikipedians who support..." If you have another idea for renaming please suggest it. Currently I am against the renaming in the proposed format for all political parties because it just doesn't fit all of them.Tal :) 13:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Upon reflection, I think it would be best to put all political party categories into the format "Wikipedians who support...", which I think works equally well with "Wikipedians who support the Likud party" or "Wikipedians who support the Democratic Party (US)", etc. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably not doable. Do category:Libertarian Wikipedians members support the Libertarian Party? What about category:Fascist Wikipedians? Short of polling everyone, we can't know.--Mike Selinker 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Thanks for all your work in renaming Wikipedian categories! --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Happy to help.--Mike Selinker 16:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sexy Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_16#Category:Sex_Symbols. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this cat contains and was created by the user who created Category:Sex Symbols. --musicpvm 19:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carina22 10:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a purely subjective and useless catgory. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Cswrye. Sexy to one is not sexy to another - it is not an encyclopaedic categorisation. Rhyddfrydol 21:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Given that is is a categorization of Wikipedians it doesn't need to be encyclopaedic per se. JoshuaZ 03:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just as bad as category:User intelligent.--Mike Selinker 20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a userbox to the category for improvement. Crisonastick 17:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, adding a userbox just makes it worse. That userbox had already been deleted twice over and now it's been deleted thrice over. No new userboxes should be created in template space per WP:GUS. --Cyde Weys 20:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does adding a userbox make the category worse? I wasn't aware that the userbox had been deleted twice already, and I have no idea what the deleted content was. You cannot say that the deleted userbox was not an improvement on the category. Crisonastick 23:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and protect from recreation.Chili14 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Accounting

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This +cat existed before and was replaced by Category:Accountancy. It should be deleted quickly before anymore +tags get attached and a major clean up needed. What123 16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Accountancy is not a good description of the field, since it refers to a job title. Category:Accounting is needed to describe a lot of issues in economics. It seems to me that two separate categories are justified, but if there is only to be one it should be called Category:Accounting. Also, I think it was unreasonably pre-emptive to delete tags without discussion JQ 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article name is also Accountancy (Accounting is a redirect). These are essentially two names for the same thing. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is an important distinction between the field of accounting (a subdiscipline of economics) and the profession of accountancy. There are many university departments of accounting but none AFAIK of accountancy. More important maybe is the area of National Accounts, which are very important - it would be just silly to list them under Accountancy.JQ 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is nothing to merge, this is a category. All the entries are in Category:Accountancy, which use to be called Category:Accounting and it was voted on and renamed Category:Accountancy as this is the name of the main article Accountancy. What123 18:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not two I think there are two issues to consider here. One is if we need two categories, Accounting and Accountancy. Currently, I don't see a reason to have two. The reason offered above, viz. that university departments are named "accounting", seems to speak in favor of a name change not creation of two different categories. As to whether the name should be Accounting or Accountancy, I don't have a strong opinion. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it was Category:Accounting and then there was a vote to rename it Category:Accountancy it would be insane to keep changing the name back and forth. What123 23:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second time is the charm? If the change was made in error, it should be changed back. Obviously we can't keep debating the same thing over and over, but two debates does not seem extreme to me. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about a name change from Category:Accounting to Category:Accounting (economics)? I'm happy to write an article on this topic, covering the role of accounting identities, national accounts, economic depreciation and so on. None of these things are mentioned in Accountancy, reasonably enough since they aren't of much interest to people employed in accountancy JQ 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - category has been empty for several days and is both redundant and superfluous given that correct categories for grounds in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland already exist. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep It was empty because BlackJack emptied it but I have restored it. All sports venues in the United Kingdom should be included in Category:Sports venues in the United Kingdom and via that in Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom. Hawkestone 17:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawkestone. - EurekaLott 20:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawkestone. Chicheley 23:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this section was removed by its nominator, who also emptied the category again listed the category for speedy deletion. I'm restoring the previous versions now. - EurekaLott 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is false and misleading to categorise anything to do with cricket or football in UK terms. It is fact that all cricket and football in the UK is based on the individual nations, not as British or UK teams or organisations. There are already adequate categories for cricket venues in the home nations. By all means include these under Category:Sports venues in the United Kingdom but to talk about "UK cricket venues" is incorrect and does not help the readers at all. Furthermore, the category was empty for over a week before this proposal was created so why is it now being populated by people on this page to make it appear to future readers that it was not empty? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC) It has been pointed out that these categories are part of Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom which is of course a non-cricket context and therefore they are relevant. In which case: strong keepand withdraw nomination. And apologies for the confusion this nomination has caused. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Eleanor Powell films

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recreation of Category:Films by actor. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator of the category. Please refer me to the Wikipedia Policy page that prohibits such categories. I'm unaware of the "Films by actor" category ever existing. 23skidoo 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not a good idea. See previous discussions here and here. --musicpvm 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Music. Joe 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 10:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 18:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Samuel L. Jackson Films

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since Category:Films by actor killed April 11, 2006. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons given above. I know of no Wikipolicy prohibiting such categories, it's maintainable, and I never heard of the "Films by actor" category (and would have voted to keep if I did). 23skidoo 18:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not a good idea. See previous discussions here and here. --musicpvm 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Music. Joe 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is wrong with a page being in many categories? That is how one finds information. --Joe 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, here is the answer: The point of a category is to browse to other articles related to a topic that would otherwise be difficult to find. In the case of films by actor categories, this information can be found in the article. Virtually every article about actors has a filmography. If it doesn't it should have one. Imagine that every film gets fully categorized into every actor's subcategory. Films with large casts will have scores of categories that add virtually nothing useful. The articles about the films have the cast listed, and the articles about the actors have the films listed. Making these categories is a wasted effort. We end up with clutter that has little or no added usefulness. -- Samuel Wantman

Delete per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 10:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since as above films have too many actors to include a "film by actor" category for every actor in every film. However, that being said, I want to respond to Sam Wantman's comments above, since in my opinion he said something that is a little misleading. Just because an article might have a complete list of works doesn't mean having a corresponding category that includes those works is a bad idea. Many articles have either no list of works or an abridged list. And even when there is a list, not all the items in the lists are always wiki-linked properly. So the category in those cases allows you to easilly cross-reference an artist's works with all the corrpesponding articles. That is why Category:Books by author and Category:Films by director are useful. In fact, the only important difference between Category:Films by director and Category:Films by actor is that there is normally only ONE director per film, as opposed to tens or hundreds of actors. So as a practical matter, it's much easier to upkeep the by-director category than the by-actor category. Thus even though a list might often appear in an article, a category can still be useful in addition to the list. Dugwiki 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dugwiki . Golfcam 18:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Dugwiki and prior discussions. JoshuaZ 03:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Planetshakers Albums

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Planetshakers Albums to Category:Planetshakers albums
Category:PlanetShaker Albums to Category:Planetshakers albums
Rename, Per normal conventions. kingboyk 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename as per nom. - Jc37 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename.--Mike Selinker 19:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge/rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Nature's Best

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Doesn't make sense to me to categorise this not-particularly-noteworthy compilation series seperately from other compilations. kingboyk 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category allows these New Zealand articles to be grouped together, which is useful from a NZ perspective even if the albums aren't globally notable. Chicheley 23:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Big-country-centric nomination. Nathan Mercer 10:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Solid Steel

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Solid Steel into Category:Ninja Tune albums

Merge, I see no reason why this compilation series needs to be categorised seperately from other Ninja Tune albums nor go against the naming norm (xxx albums). kingboyk 15:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:British Islamist terrorists

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Improper categorization per WP:NCCAT#Occupation. We already have Category:British terrorists and Category:Islamists. There is potential for creating Category:British Islamists, but we don't categorize occupations by religion and nationality in the same cat for good reason: non-British Islamists and non-Islamist terrorists exist. Islamists and terrorists are separate categories; Islamists are Muslims and Terrorists are criminals; both two different sets of data. The seven members of this current category cannot be verified to be "Islamists", however it is speculated that Shehzad Tanweer is connected to an Islamist group, Lashkar-e-Toiba, in which case Mr. Tanweer may be added to Category:Islamists, and the associated terrorist and Islamist group cats. —Viriditas | Talk 00:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After reading WP:NCCAT and it's numerous subpages, I am not understanding your example. Priests; Roman Catholic priests; Italian priests; Italian Roman Catholic priests. If we follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) which do you feel would be the most appropriate? - Jc37 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is actually quite different than the nominated cat. RC priests are a subset, categorized by nationality in some cases. Perfectly valid. However, you will notice that Islamists are a subset of Muslims, not criminals, which contains terrorists: two separate sets. In such cases, we categorize by a generic description of the event, or by the name of the group. That is, in fact what was done to contain members of the RC sex scandal; they have their own cat which is a subset of both religion and crime. —Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your concern is the order of the modifiers, since the name appears to be a merger of two concepts: British terrorists and Islamic extremist terrorists (both of which apply to those within this category, I presume). I might support a 'Rename adding "extremist" to the name. And is there a difference between saying Muslim extremist and Islamic extremist? Apparently there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist. (The latter being extremists.) (See also Muslim#Disagreements and Islamic extremist terrorism.) - Jc37 03:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entities of type Y are subtypes of entity type X if and only if every Y is necessarily an X. Terrorists are types of criminals; Islamists are types of Muslims. Muslims are not types of criminals. For example, in the case of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, members of the Roman Catholic church were named and implicated. Categories describing the nationality, church position, and crime of each person were not created due to the reasons above. Instead, a general category was created for the scandal itself (Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal), and that cat was populated with members who maintained their original categories, such as by conviction (sex offender), by position (American Roman Catholic priests), and other crime cats (American rapists). The categorization of terrorists is no different than that of sex offenders. We do not mix religion and crime; instead we create a new category that either represents the incident or group, and categorize appropriately. This leaves the current categorization scheme intact while adding a new relationship. End result: Category:British Islamists and Category:British terrorists will be populated with the members of Category:British Islamist terrorists, and a new category will be added describing the relationship between the two. One solution might be to add relevant terrorist incident cats (for example Category:July 2005 London bombings) to relevant members, as the need arises. Notice, then, that all descriptive information has been accurately represented and preserved. —Viriditas | Talk 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you've added more information to the nom. Now the concern is citations for each individual in the category? Anyway, concerning the name: according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) as much information as necessary should be included. So in this case, it's either keep or rename (I'll vote below) - Jc37 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and Wikipedia:Categorization of people. We don't categorize terrorists by religion, but by nationality. Furthermore, the members in the current category cannot be verified; in some cases the group or incident can be verified, and as such provides an additional categorization. There is no precedent for this current categorization which combines two disparate sets of data to form an inaccurate, subjective, inconsistent categorization method. To date, there has not been a single good argument to keep this category. Essentially, you are saying we should create Category:American Roman Catholic priest rapists. This is absurd. We don't use the category system like this. —Viriditas | Talk 01:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly defined and prominent subgroup of British terrorists. Hawkestone 17:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, in fact Islamists are not a subset of terrorists in the categorization scheme. —Viriditas | Talk 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The terrorists have an agenda and are defined as such.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, that's not how we use categories. —Viriditas | Talk 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hawkestone and if possible Rename to include the word "extremist" in the name somehow. - Jc37 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Islamism and Terrorism are two distinct data sets. We categorize by one or the other, not both. The current scheme places two categories on each page, a Category:British terrorists, and a Category:Islamists, if they apply. A third category, describing the terrorist incident in question, may be added for additional information. This current category disrupts this scheme and enforces the POV of the person who created the category. Muslims aren't a type of criminal, and all Islamists aren't terrorists. When we need to describe a group of terrorists, we use the name of the terrorist group; we do not describe them by their religion. —Viriditas | Talk 01:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atm I don't see a reason in your arguement to change my vote, however, I am more than willing to hear your thoughts. I don't see the validity of not including British + Islamist terrorist in the title of the category. Can you give me specific quotations? - Jc37 05:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave many reasons why the category doesn't work, but the simplest one is that of consistency. Long time Wikipedian User:GCarty created this cat on Aug. 11, 2006, in response to the August 10, 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot investigation, so it cannot be said to be based on actual research. As for consistency, GCarty also created Category:American Islamist terrorists previously on Feb 12. All three of the members of that cat duplicate Category:Al-Qaeda members, which is already a member of Category:Islamist groups, so there is no justification for this category in the first place: GCarty's categorization scheme does not add new information but in fact duplicates it, in addition to distorting the occupation by nationality scheme by adding religion. In no other instance is a set of religious people mixed with a set of criminals, even though Wikipedia is full of religious terrorism spanning the spectrum, from American Christian terrorists like Eric Robert Rudolph, Ugandan Christian terrorists like Joseph Kony, and all the rest. For some strange reason, when it comes to categorizing Muslims, people lose their ability to reason. For the record, I am not a Muslim. —Viriditas | Talk 09:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting this category to be branded Islamophobic. I was simply trying to classify terrorists by ideology as well as by nationality. If the August 2006 airliner bomb plot is conclusively linked to al-Qaeda, then the category could be renamed Category:British al-Qaeda members. --GCarty 10:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Category:Criminals is not classified by ideology, but by type of crime, like the example Jc37 gave about the RC priests; it's the same set of articles. —Viriditas | Talk 12:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for your response. You've added new perspective to the information for me (and information is what we all need for a discerning choice : ) I was hoping for some specific quotes from policies or even guidelines (since I haven't found several of your points on the pages noted) You'll also please pardon me if I feel like this is similar to an old Algebra class I had regarding sets and sub-sets. If A = British + Islamist + terrorist, then A belongs to several sets: The British set, the Islamist set, the terrorist set, the British Islamist set, the Islamist terrorist set, the British terrorist set, and the British Islamist terrorist set. Each of those sets are potential categories. I'm still not seeing why a specific person "A" cannot belong to each of these sets. This obviously is not dealing with the question of whether those currently in the "set" (category) are each actually congruent to "A". Incidentally, does a category of American Roman Catholic priests executed after being considered criminals in China, while long, sound like a legitimate category to you? - Jc37 00:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British people belongs to People and Categories by nationality. People and Religion are both children of Society. That's the relationship. Religion is not a member of People, but Beliefs, which in turn belongs to Thoughts. There is no overlap at this level, but they do overlap in many sub-cats. Yes, some criminals are Muslim, but all Muslims are not criminals. So these people can belong to other sets, but we don't do it due to overcategorization. Why should we list criminals by belief; why not shoe size or hair color? This form of categorization implies that Muslims are types of criminals. The category doesn't work that way; it's sorted by occupation. The identity of the criminal is defined by the type of crime. I've looked throughout the Criminals cat to find something approaching "British Islamist terrorists" and came up empty. We must be consistent. What is an "Islamist terrorist"? It is usually defined as a group, and that is how it should be listed. Terrorists are listed by nationality, group name (if any), and when appropriate, by another type of criminal act, such as hijackings. Category:People by religion and occupation does not seem to be populated by criminals or nationality, although some categories have used nationality due to size. Again, no terrorists, but this category is a complete mess. Persian mathematicians are a member of Muslim mathematicians, so all Persian mathematicians are Muslim? Same goes for Arab mathematicians. How interesting, the Jewish scientist Mashallah is categorized as a Muslim as a result. It doesn't end there, either. I could go on, but why? The categories are completely out of control. Why are occupations being classified by religion? Christian pet detectives? Zoroastrian street sweepers? Where does it end? As for the priests: Chinese executions and People executed by method would be appropriate. If there is a group of ten or more, adding a new category which describes the group and incident at a certain level is encouraged. Victims of human rights abuses has Political prisoners, but People imprisoned or executed for their religion, or some such variant would work, which could then belong to Chinese repressions, as well as others. —Viriditas | Talk 04:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it make sense to categorize terrorists by nationality, and by type of action, but not by ideology (Islamist, nationalist, separatist, communist, neo-Nazi, anarchist, animal rights)? --GCarty 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before I respond, does anyone know if there is a point that we should move a discussion to the talk page?

Ok, you (Viriditas) have brought up some interesting points that I'd like to consider/respond to.

1. "There is no overlap at this level, but they do overlap in many sub-cats." - Such as this one, I presume?
2. "Yes, some criminals are Muslim, but all Muslims are not criminals." - I don't think that that is being disputed at all.
3. "This form of categorization implies that Muslims are types of criminals." - In this case, I disagree. You've actually argued against this reading by claiming that "terrorist" is an occupation (which also may or may not be true.) British Islamist cab drivers would not presume that all Islamists are cab drivers, just that those in this specific category are (that these belong to this sub-set).
4. "So these people can belong to other sets, but we don't do it due to overcategorization." - citation and reason please? An example I find is Abdul Nacer Benbrika under Category:Muslim activists This person (according to the article) is a terrorist, as well as an activist. By his inclusion in this category, should we presume that all activists are terroists? Obviously not.
5. "Why should we list criminals by belief; why not shoe size or hair color?" I think a direct analogy would be the "The Red-Headed League", a group from a case of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. Since the criminality stems from the circumstancial (whether extremist muslim, or having red hair) then I do think it's notable.
6. "I've looked throughout the Criminals cat to find something approaching "British Islamist terrorists" and came up empty." Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army members Nationality + Belief + terroist.
7. "this category is a complete mess." and "The categories are completely out of control." Find an appropriate talk page somewhere, list it at the WIkipedia:Village pump, get a discussion started, and let's get it fixed by concensus. : )
8. "Why are occupations being classified by religion?" Why not? - Jc37 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Improper categorization. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If category is deleted, put all its entries in both Category:British terrorists and Category:Islamists. --GCarty 12:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well defined group of people. This is not a by-religion category as such - see Islamism for details. Nathan Mercer 10:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Japanese actress

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Japanese actors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge per nom; following the pattern of other such categories, eliminating the actress cats. Thanks Hmains 16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "actors" categories might be renamed "actors and actresses" categories in case they are assumed to contain only men...? Regards, David Kernow 02:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We generally do not separate categories by gender. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. In this context, "actors" is genderless and can refer to both men and women. Dugwiki 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Tommy February6 releases

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ForeFront Records releases to Category:ForeFront Records albums
Category:Gotee Records releases to Category:Gotee Records albums
Category:Project X releases to Category:Project X albums
Category:Tommy February6 releases to Category:Tommy February6 albums
Rename, Per convention kingboyk 14:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.--Mike Selinker 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. --musicpvm 16:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and because I made a mistake when making the ForeFront one.Chili14 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Actors who portrayed The Mad Hatter (Batman)

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessarily specific category with only two articles in it. User:Angr 13:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, I don't think we should delete this by itself, since there are three dozen similar categories in the Batman actors parent categories. I'm not a big fan of any of them, though.--Mike Selinker 13:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessive categorisation (all the others should be deleted too). Hawkestone 17:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes all of the similar sub-categories would appear to be better served as list pages. The list page(s) should be created prior to deletion(s). - Jc37 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial information. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps this would be better as a page, rather than a category. Rhyddfrydol 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We've got enough fancruft to deal with already. — Dale Arnett 04:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dale Arnett Nathan Mercer 10:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Freiburg School and Category:Freiburg School economists

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn --Kbdank71 14:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure claimed school. Main category has one eponymous article and subcategory has three stubby entries JQ 11:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stubbiness does not imply obscurity. The term "Freiburg School" is a much used term in academia. See Google Scholar for example. Intangible 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Google Scholar produces 400 or so hits, some to a school of thought in embryology. This is enough to justify an entry, but not enough for its own category. For comparison, "Chicago School" gets over 17000 entries and lots of individual economists have more entries than this. JQ 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Well. Only recently a renewed (international) interest was generated into the Freiburg School. I don't think you can hold that against them. Its signifance in Germany's history is also not to be neglected. Without these people, West Germany would never have prospered right after the Second World War. Furthermore, there are also hits in Google Scholar to each individual member, without explicit reference to the Freiburg School. (854 vs. 974 for Walter Eucken). Intangible 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I agree that this group is of interest, although I hadn't heard of them before and I'm reasonably well-read in economics (social market economy and ordoliberalism certainly, but normally imputed to others). Still, there are a *lot* of 'schools' in this sense, and we need to work out a sensible way of dealing with them in the categorization scheme or it will be overwhelmed. I propose to create a category for locality-based schools of thought, including say Chicago, Virginia public choice and so on, and include Freiburg in this group.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 13:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have just looked at the category and some of the articles. I think that caregories are important to organize material together. Thus, a catgory for each economic school of thought is not too much, with a super category above such schools. The WP database can certainly handle more categories.

And economics is important to all our lives. Thanks Hmains 16:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw proposed deletion. I've created a Category:Locality-based schools of economic thought and methodology and included Category:Freiburg School JQ 08:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Canadian Football League punt returners

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge both to Category:Canadian football return specialists --Kbdank71 14:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POST-CLOSING UPDATE: I noted that Dale and I made a mistake in our suggestion to rename, in that all these subcategories are "Canadian Football League (X)", not "Canadian football (X)". So I changed the closing instructions to "Canadian Football League return specialists".--Mike Selinker 14:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Canadian Football League kick returners. --Amchow78 ^(talk) Amchow78 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merge as listed doesn't make sense (punts are not kicks), but I could see merging both into Category:Canadian Football League returners. This only works if the parallel categories, category:American football kick returners and category:American football punt returners, are merged into category:American football returners. None of that rolls off the tongue very well, though, so I'd say weak keep.--Mike Selinker 13:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How about Category:American football return specialists and Category:Canadian football return specialists? The "return specialist" phrase is fairly common in the States... would any of our Canadian friends know if it's used on their side of the border? — Dale Arnett 09:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, of course. Let's change all of them to "return specialists".--Mike Selinker 14:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Municipalities in Spain and all of its subcategories to Category:Municipalities of Spain

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after dicussion. Vegaswikian 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

per naming conventions. Tim! 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Municipalities in Sevilla must be renamed to Category:Municipalities of Seville eeeee. --Emijrp 08:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all using "in" to "of" per nom. David Kernow 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#State-based topics. - EurekaLott 02:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps time to reconsider the relevant convention/s...? Virtually all articles on national administrative divisions I've passed by use "X of Y". This seems sensible as what's translated to be an X for one country is not necessarily translated as X for another, as is the case with "municipality". Regards, David Kernow 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further observation: Articles on national administrative subdivisions seem to follow (ought to follow?) a "Xs of Y" format. Regards, David Kernow 13:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Category:Municipalities. Vegaswikian 17:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all using "of", which is the convention for subdivisions. Hawkestone 17:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - "Part of" Spain, not "enclosed in" Spain. - Jc37 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Giving this more thought. One would say Chicago is "in" Illinois, not "of" Illinois. Quote: Administrative divisions take the "of" form and settlements take the "in" form. Municipalities are usually found in non-English speaking countries as third tier administrative divisions covering the whole country including rural areas. In most cases, there are separate designations for settlements such as cities and towns. However where the designation "municipality" is used solely for urban settlements (example, Romania) or where it is the only official designation for cities and towns (example, Spain), the category takes the "in" form. - from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#State-based topics - Jc37 17:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose the difficulty is where some types of settlement are also used as administrative subdivisions... Regards, David Kernow 02:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why can't we use "in" for all geographical feature categories, whether physical or human? Chicheley 23:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an overlap between geography and administrative subdivision (and political subdivision and...) which suggests the former might be "in" a country or territory but the latter are "of" a country or territory, i.e. "belong" to it. Overtones of natural feature => "in", man-made feature => "of"...? Regards, David Kernow 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the opposite of the actual conventions that apply to most cases. Carina22 10:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Arrg... I must be confusing myself again... Nonetheless, the norm for administrative (sub)divisions appears to be "Xs of Y" and, probably due to Jc37's observation below, is what seems to work for me. Regards, David
Oppose per note quoted by Jc37. Carina22 10:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It occurs to me that "of" places the noun in the genitive case (let's hear it for studying latin : ) - David Kernow's points are well taken. I think the solution to this is to use "of" when talking about indefinite, and to use "in" when talking about definite. So municipalities of Illinois, vs Chicago is in Illinois. Association vs. Location. - Jc37 18:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Giant Panda (Hip Hop)

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Giant Panda (Hip Hop) to Category:Giant Panda albums

Rename, Per norm. kingboyk 12:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 13:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Rayons of Azerbaijan

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rayons of Azerbaijan to Category:Districts of Azerbaijan
Rationale: To use standard English term. David Kernow 10:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and redirect as nom. David Kernow 10:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carina22 10:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: few pages above is a CfD on Oblasts/Krais of Russia. This kind of naming should be standardized and preferably the most fitting English terms used everywhere. Btw, rayon is/was very widely used term in the Soviet Union. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Lobbying groups

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lobbying groups into Category:Advocacy groups

Merge, although there probably is a (subjective) slight difference between "lobbying" and "political advocacy" (with lobbying being more respectable, posher,... and better paid), in practice these two cats are a hotch-potch of the two. I also note that subcats by country have different names. Mais oui! 08:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the members of each category, I'm wondering whether there is a distinction to be made between "political" and "non-political" lobbying or advocacy... if, say, the categories were merged into one named Category:Lobbying and advocacy groups, would this combine groups that advocate but not necessarily lobby ("advocate politically")...? Unsure, David Kernow 10:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lobbyist is an activist that actually lobbies an individual or group for change. An activist can merely be someone with an opinion and a bullhorn. So lobbying groups is a sub-category of advocacy groups. Both categories need cleanup. - Jc37 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. "The X Lobby" is bandied about without regard to whether the organizations or persons are officially registered as lobbyists or conduct lobbying in the formal sense. It is also the case that in various jurisdictions, some types of political participation are conducted not by a group (e.g. the National Rifle Association) but by an affiliate or subsidiary which may not have or merit a WP article (e.g. National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Affairs), for tax or campaign finance laws. If these are to be permitted, virtually every industry and civic group and most of their members would need to be included as well, rendering the category so large as to be meaningless. That all of Category:Animal rights groups, Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States and Category:Political pressure groups of the United Kingdom are included as subcategories indicates to me that Wikipedians already view "lobbying" as synonymous with "advocacy." -choster 15:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Celebrities with MySpace accounts

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think it's a good idea to categorise people by what websites they use. Philip Stevens 08:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Déjà vu...? David Kernow 10:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean déjà vu? Has it been up for deletion before? Philip Stevens 12:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Under a different name, I think. --kingboyk 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, something like that. David 13:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - If I am not mistaken, I think this might also be what the déjà vu is of: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities and musicians with a MySpace profile --AlexTheMartian | Talk 17:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. --kingboyk 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that {{MySpace}} has also been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 19. --kingboyk 13:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is too trivial for a category. Maybe a list, but even that is questionable. It would be like having a "Celebrities with web sites" category. And yes, I feel like this has been nominated for CfD before. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cswrye and others. -- JHunterJ 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above --Bob 18:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again. —tregoweth (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Chili14 01:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Commonwealth Sport

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commonwealth Sport to ~~Category:Category:Commonwealth of Nations sports competitions~~ (changed - see below)

Rename, remove the capital "S"; and disambiguate "Commonwealth" (see Commonwealth disambiguation page). Also, all the members of the category are competitions, so better to make that explicit. (An alternative title may be Category:Commonwealth of Nations sports events?) Mais oui! 08:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black pudding throwing is very clearly a sporting activity, but is bridge? --Mais oui! 08:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sports events of the Commonwealth of Nations to avoid triple consecutive plural. David Kernow 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that it implies that these things are actually organised by the CofN - ie. "official" - I very much doubt if that is true, at least for some of them? --Mais oui! 12:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Sports events associated with the Commonwealth of Nations...? Regards, David 13:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what the proposer of this name change is seeking, however I would argue that Commonwealth Sport is succinct enough as a category. Mais oui! argues that all the members of the category are competitions - this is not so, since one of the pages is Commonwealth Games Associations which are the governing bodies of Commonwealth Sporting activity in their relevant countries. Most of the competitions are sanctioned by the Commonwealth Games Federation - including the bridge competition - though not all are. To ease with disambiguation perhaps an entry at the front of the article stating that Commonwealth refers to countries and territories which are part of the Commonwealth of Nations - as opposed to the Commonwealth of Virginia etc. That in itself would be a simple solution, though not totally encyclopeadic. For instance Hong Kong has taken part at the Commonwealth Lifesaving Championships, post return of the territory to China. The intention of the category was to show that sporting competitions take place between Commonwealth countries outwith and beyond the Commonwealth Games. Incidentally this is another arguement for why the Commonwealth of Nations is still relevant in the 21st century, because Commonwealth nations have a desire to compete against each other in sporting competitions ..... but that is a discussion for another page. In short I would argue that the category remains simply and succinctly Commonwealth Sport. Rhyddfrydol 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Okay, but if kept, {{capitalmove}} to Category:Commonwealth sport~~. There's more than one Commonwealth. David Kernow 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC), updated 21:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David Kernow Rhyddfrydol 13:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the category could be renamed Category:Sport in the Commonwealth of Nations Petepetepete 13:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sport in the Commonwealth of Nations per User:Petepetepete. That is the best suggestion so far. (Why didn't I think of that?) --Mais oui! 15:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a terrible suggestion as all the national sport categories for Commonwealth countries could be added to it, which isn't the intention at all. Nathan Mercer 10:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Sport in the Commonwealth of Nations seems fine to me too; there are many other "Sport in..." categories. Regards,~~ See below. David Kernow 21:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC), stricken 12:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Petepetepete it does seem the sensible solution. Rhyddfrydol 23:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Sports events associated with the Commonwealth of Nations for precision. Nathan Mercer 10:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nathan makes a good point above that "Sport in the Commonwealth of Nations" would also include all those worldwide sports in which the Commonwealth of Nations participates. Since the category's membership identifies particular events, rename to Category:Sports events associated with the Commonwealth of Nations per Nathan; a parent category might be "Sports associated with the Commonwealth of Nations". David Kernow 12:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Entertainers from Creole Decent

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Category title has poor grammar and spelling. Also, the Creole peoples article states "The term Creole and its cognates in other languages have been applied to people in different countries and epochs, with rather different meanings." musicpvm 06:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Entertainers of Carribean descent...? David Kernow 10:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too vague. -- JHunterJ 12:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC) see below for new Rename vote[reply]
Delete "Creole" is a word that should be avoided in category names. Chicheley 23:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is needed because of the comments listed below, Creole does not mean "carribean" and it more than a language and although it can have many meaning the purpose of this category has been spelled out. It specifically is for entertainers...which is not vague. Lack of knowledge is no excuse for a category to be closed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baltimorecreole (talk • contribs) 20:29, August 21, 2006 (UTC).
- Okay, but as it currently stands I don't think the name makes sense in English. Please suggest an amended or new name for it – thanks, David Kernow 10:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Entertainers of Louisiana Creole descent -- JHunterJ 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cats that are "of X descent" are monstrous. You could have someone who is 1/16th X listed. Mad Jack 06:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If no consensus, at least amend name to Category:Entertainers of Creole descent. David Kernow 12:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can we have an ethnic category for such an undefinable ethnicity. And that's assuming that ethnic sports categories are desirable at all, which they aren't in my opinion. Nathan Mercer 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Rock'n'Roll

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to Category:Rock music and it contains only 3 articles. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --musicpvm 06:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above plus miscapitaliz/sation. David Kernow 10:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Cswrye 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bassists

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ok, let me know when it's done. I have no idea how to divide them. --Kbdank71 13:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members should be divided between Category:Double-bassists, Category:Bass guitarists, and Category:Musicians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional South Park foods

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- There are only two things in this category. It should be deleted and the two things categorized under this should probably just be changed to Category:Fictional foods. -Platypus Man | Talk 01:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extreme fancruft. KleenupKrew 02:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Fictional foods per nom. --musicpvm 05:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into fictional foods and category:South Park. --Mike Selinker 05:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. JoshuaZ 03:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Georgia maps

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, empty --Kbdank71 13:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgia maps into Category:Maps of Georgia (country)

Merge, Duplicate cats, "Maps of foo" appears to be the standard form of Category:Maps by country's children. AJR | Talk 00:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cloachland 02:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete/redirect. David Kernow 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --musicpvm 05:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, countryname maps was the naming convention in Category:Maps by country, but User:Electionworld has been creating dozens of duplicate categories. We probably need to look at the entire category. - EurekaLott 14:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest convention is switched to "Maps of X" per Commons as (a) permits "Adjectival maps of X" (e.g. "Old maps of Atlantis") and (b) avoids difficulties with place-names' adjectivals that are awkward and/or obscure (cf List of adjectival forms of place names). Regards, David Kernow 15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may be appropriate to rename the categories to maps of country, but if you actually looked at the category, you'd see that the older categories have names like Category:Russia maps and Category:Hungary maps, and do not employ the adjectival form. - EurekaLott 20:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies if it wasn't evident I'd taken a look. A subtext of my suggestion is that if an adjectival syntax is to be used, let's use adjectivals; but as this can be awkward ((b) above), let's consider "Maps of..." Regards, David 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.