Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 19 April 21 >

April 20[edit]

Category:Hong Kong television comedy[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hong Kong television comedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, this category is unnecessary and very empty for over a year. This category could fit in Category:TVB programmes. Smcafirst(Talk)

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:Dog breeds recognised by the American Kennel Club[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dog breeds recognised by the American Kennel Club to Category:Dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Per WP:ENGVAR. An American organisation, therefore the category should be renamed to reflect on the American English spelling of "recognize". Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Listify. Dog breeds by authority is similar to actor by performance. Taken to an extreme, each breed of dog could have a category corresponding to almost every country in the world. Bluap 22:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is already handled by an excellent series of illustrated directories from the American Kennel Club main article. There is no need whatsoever for this category. Mangoe 02:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Each dog breed does not need a category for every authority that recognizes the breed. The list could potentailly be very long and difficult to read. As discussed above, this could be described in a list article or a series of list articles. Dr. Submillimeter 11:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment These lists already exist and are actually one of the best examples of how these could be done. See for example Working Group (dogs), one of the sublists. Mangoe 12:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Choalbaton 23:30, 21 April 2007 (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:Other Major Political Offices of the European Union[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to "political offices". >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Other Major Political Offices of the European Union to Category:Politics of the European Union
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States National Guard officers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 12:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States National Guard officers to Category:Officers of the United States National Guard
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Comply with "X of Y" naming guidelines. NDCompuGeek 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: Also, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 44#Categorizing military people (and subsequent archives) for further guidance. - NDCompuGeek 12:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Was this meant to be a test case? I'm not sure why you would do them one at a time. If you put in an umbrella nom for all of them (meaning at least Category:American military officers and below), referencing that discussion, I will change to support. Presumably you will then be doing the other nationalities after the US? --After Midnight 0001 15:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I can't speak for the rest of the project, as my familiarity is with the USAF articles in the USMilHist task force, but I would imagine the rest of the project will be soon to follow suit. As for the umbrella nom, if you are willing to teach me how, I will do it. After Midnight, if you would please leave me a note on my talk page to let me know if you would instruct me on how to do an umbrella nom, I would greatly appreciate it! - NDCompuGeek 05:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When in doubt, go for the shorter one.--Simul8 13:02, 25 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:American Dragon: Jake Long[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American Dragon: Jake Long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is not needed for navigational purposes and if kept it will require constant maintenance to prevent it from being used as an improper performer by performance category. Otto4711 18:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's nothing wrong with a TV show having a category. It has an episodes subcategory, a characters subcategory, and so on. And Jake Long isn't an actor. What's the "improper" part here?--Mike Selinker 10:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I know Jake Long isn't an actor. Someone went in and cleaned the actors out of the category since the nomination. When it was nominated it had a number of actors and others affiliated with the show in it. The character and episode subcats are part of their respective category trees and are navigable through the main show article making the category superfluous. Otto4711 14:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleared out the actors, because as you say, they shouldn't be there. But that's just normal maintenance; we have to do that for Cheers and Star Trek too, I expect. I'm trying to understand, though. You seem to be interested in deleting everything these days, Otto. I don't understand why you're so gung-ho on deleting categories because they're "superfluous." Some other TV series have categories to hold their subcategories, and I presume we're keeping them. What makes this one different?--Mike Selinker 16:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this one different is that I found it. I haven't looked at the categories for Cheers or Star Trek, but if I thought after looking at them that they weren't needed then I'd put them up as well and have the community weigh in. We have deleted TV series categories (for example, we just deleted the categories for Medium (TV series)) so it's not like this is unprecedented. I was under the impression that editors' time was a limited resource, so if we can reduce the time that has to be devoted to routine maintenance of categories that aren't required that frees up time to maintain things that are. It's not like I go out searching for stuff to delete, but if I find stuff I'm going to nominate it. It just happens that I've come across some category trees recently that need some cleanup. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong or untoward and I don't appreciate being made to feel like I have to defend myself. Otto4711 17:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I don't think you're doing anything wrong or untoward. I'm trying to figure out the boundaries you're trying to establish. I definitely buy the family deletions, for example. But why delete one show with subcategories? You're not arguing for an approach, as far as I can tell. That makes it harder to evaluate, and so my knee-jerk reaction is there's no reason to delete. (A need for maintenance defines all categories, so that doesn't seem like a good reason on its own.) I'm happy to change my mind if I understand a global rationale, that's all.--Mike Selinker 02:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This feels like it's going far afield of the specific nomination so rather than clutter up this page with it I'm going to move this to your talk page if that's all right. Otto4711 04:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mike Selinker Tim! 11:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per M.S. and because I'm not keen to delete categories which have objective criteria based on them being used improperly on occasion. I would rather correct the behavior than remove the category. --After Midnight 0001 15:46, 23 April 2007 (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:Autodidacts[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Autodidacts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Speedy delete and block - The category is for people who have educated themselves (at least in a specific field) rather than received a formal education. This was deleted following a 21 Feb 2007 discussion for multiple reasons. First, this is a fairly common activity for people (especially before the twentieth century) so categorizing people this way means little. Second, the category tended to be vague and all-inclusive, and could include people with no formal education; people who went to school only for a few years; or people who have complete secondary educations but who have no formal training in specific fields of work. The category should be deleted. Moreover, since several other versions of this category exist on other language versions of Wikipedia, I suspect that it could be recreated here (since people will copy other versions of Wikipedia), so I recommend blocking the category. Dr. Submillimeter 17:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not really much point when there is such little content in it and plus all that is mentioned above. Radio_Orange (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Possibly might need to compliment university alumni cats? The only reason I can see for having the category is that it is a compliment to "Alumni of..." categories. So instead of someone being in Category:Harvard University alumni for example, they would be in Category:Autodidacts. The main question, then, is do we need this category to complete a scheme of dividing all biographies by the source of their higher education? Dugwiki 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The term "autodidact" could probably be applied to people who received a college education in one field but who taught themselves in another field. (It may have been used this way before it was deleted the last time; the previous version of the category did include people with some formal education.) Hence, it does not really complement the "alumni of" categories very well. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr Submillimeter. We don't need it to match Alumni categories: it's not an exact opposite (as many people won't go to university but won't be Autodidacts), and WP doesn't categorize by what people are not anyway. Bencherlite 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Mangoe 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block per nom. Nathanian 12:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Post-Haste and Block per nominator's suggestion. Anville 17:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 17:45, 21 April 2007 (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:Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania to Category:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The main article has been renamed from Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania to Mecklenburg-Vorpommern as per a WP:RM. Subcategories are listed below. Olessi 16:52, 20 April 2007 (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:Electroweak Theory physicists[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electroweak Theory physicists to Category:Physicists
  • Merge, this is silly overcategorization. No one categorizes physicists this way. Lesnail 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmergeper nom as overcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Electroweak physics is a real field of study, but physicists do not call themselves "electroweak physicists" (or at least not very often). Dr. Submillimeter 17:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as mentioned, non-necessary overcategorisation Radio_Orange (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge. Gnixon 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Doczilla 17:46, 21 April 2007 (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:Electromagnetism physicists[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electromagnetism physicists to Category:Physicists
  • Merge, This is overcategorization. No one categorizes physicists this way. At the moment, the category is being used for only the pioneers of the study of electromagnetism, but renaming the category to something like Category:Pioneers of electromagnetism would still be overcategorization and would add problems of POV. Lesnail 15:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. What physicist isn't involved in E&M? Gnixon 20:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems like overcat. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Doczilla 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for same reasons.Cromdog 04:07, 23 April 2007 (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:Home schooled people[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, as suggested later in the discussion. It's not a defining characteristic and whether it's WP:USEFUL isn't the point. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Home schooled people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Category:Home schooled people" should be corrected to "Category:Homeschooled people" as it is the accepted word.

Thank you for your help. Ncix 15:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Homeschooled people The associated main article is title Homeschooling, so rename the category to match the non-hyphenated spelling of the main article. Dugwiki 15:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Homeschooled people] for consistency, but note that "Home schooled" returns more non-wikipedia ghits than "home schooled", by a margin of about 3 to 2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Several other education-related categories that are similar to this one (such as Category:High school dropouts and Category:Autodidacts) were deleted a couple of months ago (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16#Category:High school dropouts and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 21#Category:Autodidacts). In this case, some of the arguments from those debates can also be applied here. These people's education (when they are children) had little to do with these people's notability, and the term "home-schooled" can be loosely applied to include a broad range of people, including people who received no formal education and people who may have only spent one or two years being home schooled. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is also not a defining characteristic for people who lived in time periods where no formal school systems had been established. Dr. Submillimeter 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply It's possible that this category is a natural compliment to sorting people by educational background. It is fairly common to include an "Alumni of..." category in articles. For someone who is homeschooled, though, there is not necessarily a formal institution underwhich the person was educated, making "homeschooled" a default for "not an alumni of an official institution". On the other hand, though, homeschooling does usually refer to high school and prior education and not colleges and universities, and so I can see a delete argument from the standpoint that we don't usually have categories for "high school alumni". Dugwiki 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Follow-up I saw this cfd before Category:Autodidacts above. Personally I think my reply above probably applies primarily to the Autodidacts cfd since that handles people who are self-taught to university level education. Thus I'm probably more inclined to possibly keep Category:Autodidacts, since we do categorize by university alumni status, but possibly delete Category:Home schooled people since we don't have alumni categories for high schools and lower. Dugwiki 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- and keep. The category is useful, and -- apropos of nothing but the previous comment -- the characteristic of being homeschooled is a defining characteristic without regard to the establishment of alternative schooling methods.--TheEditrix2 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - may be useful - needs more content though I think. Radio_Orange (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong delete, this is absolutely not a defining characteristic (speaking as someone who was homeschooled...for a year). In the vast majority of cases, homeschooling refers only to primary education, and we don't categorize people by their primary school associations. Or even secondary. "Useful" is a moot point (and an invalid argument at AfD or CfD)—just about every category that's every been created on Wikipedia could be considered useful to someone. "People with strong body odor" could be useful to certain fields of research, but it would be deleted in a flash if someone were foolish enough to create it. Xtifr tälk 23:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. S. and Xtifr. Doczilla 17:44, 21 April 2007 (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:Store locations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Store locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category title inherently violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and thus has encouraged creation of similarly unacceptable lists. All articles within, save for mistakenly placed Macy's West, have been nominated for deletion and seem to be headed for a consensus in favor of doing so. So not only is it unencylopedic, it will be empty. Daniel Case 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only good purpose this category serves is to help us find these inappropriate articles so they can be deleted at AFD. Now that that has happened, it should be deleted so as to discourage further articles of this type. Mangojuicetalk 17:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to nominator Within good faith, I suggest you wait and renominate this category after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parisian locations, et. al. have been resolved. Although I personally don't see how this particular category is useful for navigation, consensus on AFD isn't reached after only one day. Five or six delete votes are not consensus. To me, this looks like the kind of category MascotGuy would make; however, my vote on this one is neutral. Tuxide 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, the only keep votes on the AFDs seem to have been from WP:RETAIL members and tend to be appeals to the fact that a lot of people worked on the lists in question (not a valid argument for keeping) and that the lists of former locations are of historic value (they are, I admit, but WP:NOT a historical research project). Everyone from outside the retailing project has seen clear violations of WP:NOT#DIR. I know AFDs remain open, but from prior experience I don't see these being kept given the way things are going. Daniel Case 04:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The category is being properly used to organize lists of stores. As long as the list articles still exist, this category should still be kept in place. (Deleting the category will not solve the problems brought up by the nominator, as the articles will not be affected by the deletion of this category.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why we need to keep a category that encourages articles which are in clear violation of policy in their entirety and need to be deleted (the categories for attack pages and such are different as they are added via templates and are meant to guide admins to pages that need to speedied). While I have slightly modified my feelings about the articles per the deletion discussions (I accept that the information is at least potentially encyclopedic, but should be presented as part of a prose history of the chain), I do not believe the articles in the category should be kept as is — indeed, they should either be merged and prosified into the articles about the chains, or prosified as the basis of new history articles. I believe that having simultaneous discussions of the category and the articles is the right thing to do, and the same admin should look over all three and decide to keep or not. Daniel Case 12:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept should be renamed to Category:Lists of store locations. Vegaswikian 05:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this basically attracts directory listings. >Radiant< 10:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this likely to be useful to Wikipedia users? If so, it must be kept. As to US-British usage, we do say Department stores, not Department shops.--Simul8 13:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that all the pages within that category have been deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 04:54, 27 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Schools in Thurrock[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamrtalk 12:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools in Thurrock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Schools in Essex, convention of Category:Schools in England. -- Prove It (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This maybe because Thurrock is a unitary authority, so its schools are administered separately from those of Essex County Council (see Local Education Authority), but its probably a good idea to get an expert from opinion of someone in the know. Having said that, Southend's schools are in with Essex schools and it is also a unitary authority. Tim! 16:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Surely it should by schools by LEA, which would have this as Schools in Thurrock (and Southend would get it's own cat, too) -- Ratarsed 18:29, 20 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Listed buildings in Gwent[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 12:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Listed buildings in Gwent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listed buildings are not made on the basis of defunct local government areas. Owain (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Gwent[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 12:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Gwent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category and its immediate parent category are redundant. Building listings are not made on the basis of defunct local government areas. Owain (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Records by SM Entertainment[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:SM Entertainment albums. --Xdamrtalk 12:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Records by SM Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:SM Entertainment albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- Prove It (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom per convention. --After Midnight 0001 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The present name is easier for users. let's not be hide-bound by conventions.--Simul8 13:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, inconsistent names are harder for users. Longer names are likewise harder for users. Both those are reasons for supporting the rename. Furthermore, consistency in general is more professional. And, though it's not particularly relevant to this discussion, I do notice that Simul8 (talk · contribs) has a fairly unusual edit history for a two-day-old account. Xtifr tälk 16:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have about 300 edits as an anon IP, so I'm not new if that's what you mean.--Simul8 11:54, 26 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:NUTS Statistical Regions of Europe[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamrtalk 12:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NUTS Statistical Regions of Europe to Category:NUTS statistical regions of the European Union
Propose renaming Category:NUTS 1 Statistical Regions of Europe to Category:NUTS 1 statistical regions of the European Union
Propose renaming Category:NUTS 2 Statistical Regions of Europe to Category:NUTS 2 statistical regions of the European Union
Propose renaming Category:NUTS 3 Statistical Regions of Europe to Category:NUTS 3 statistical regions of the European Union
Propose renaming Category:LAU 1 Statistical Regions of Europe to Category:LAU 1 statistical regions of the European Union
Propose renaming Category:LAU 2 Statistical Regions of Europe to Category:LAU 2 statistical regions of the European Union
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Initially I was just going to nominate these for speedy renaming in respect of capitalization, but upon investigation, this is a system devised by the EU and applied only to EU countries. I also considered proposing the expansino of NUTS and LAU, but as the names are already long and doing so doesn't make them much clearly I decided against it. However, if others users have a preference for expanding the abbreviations, I wouldn't want that to prevent the renaming going ahead. Nathanian 13:45, 20 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:English magicians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamrtalk 12:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English magicians to Category:British magicians

The sub-categories within "British magicans" are problematic for several reasons and I suggest that it is safer and more useful to have just a single category for magicians with United Kingdon nationality or strong UK associations. The problems with the existing sub-categories include:

  1. At the moment there seems to be no need for the sub-categories on a simple practical level and they just complicate things. There are currently very few entries within them - the Northen Irish sub-category has only one entry (and that person is generally known as an American).
  2. There are pitfalls when trying to classify people into "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" and so on. It seems that some articles have been classified only on the basis of the subject's place of birth when that is not conclusive. eg. I know many people born in England who, if forced to choose, would classify themselves firstly as Scottish. I can lay claim to being Welsh or English. Even where people assert a strong ethnic identity they don't usually object to being classified as British or UK nationals for administrative purposes.
  3. While there might be separate sub-categories in other types of UK biography that doesn't automatically mean they are necessary for magicians. For example, "English" and "Scottish" might be relevant sub-categories in soccer because there are separate leagues in England and Scotland. However, in the case of magicians, the performing circuits, television industry and various magic organisations tend to be UK-wide.
  4. A single category for magicians with UK nationality or known for working in the UK has some advantage. For example, outside the UK there is sometimes confusion or lack of clarity about the nationality of people from the UK, with the terms "English" and "British" interchanged erroneously. For the purposes of searching Wikipedia it seems better to have a single UK category for magicians. From the point of view of an editor it would also make it slightly easier when checking through British magic biographies.

I am open to compromise. eg. If it were allowable to make this one of the exceptions for which an article could be in both a main category and a sub-category then that would address some of the problems. I would also be happy to debate suggestions for a new name for a single merged category. "British magicians" is my preference (and seems in accord with the explanation of modern usage at Alternative words for British), but I can see that something using the words "United Kingdom" might be an alternative. I have been doing a lot of work to try to "re-boot" the Magic wikiproject and this proposal one of a number of things that would help to tidy it up. The issue has also been covered on the WikiProject Magic talk page, where I have found myself in dispute with somone using anon IPs (who I suspect might be trolling or pushing a POV). If I should have brought this proposal here at an earlier stage then I apologise - I was previoulsy unaware of the procedure. I think this is a useful and reasoned proposal and I want to get it right. Circusandmagicfan 12:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

  • Oppose All British people should be subcategorised to the constituent countries, and a large majority of them are so categorised. Abberley2 13:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Abberley2. Many people within the UK do not regard "British" as their primary national classification, and some regard it as completely unacceptable, so there are neutrality issues with removing it. Most other sub-categories of Category:British people by occupation are divided by nationality, and it's a system with many merits even for underpopulated categories, because it helps avoid duplicate categorisation: e.g. Category:Welsh people and Category:British egg cup makers can be replaced with Category:Welsh egg cup makers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Abberley2, BrownHairedGirl -- Ratarsed 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Abberley2 and BrownHairedGirl. Given the detailed reasoning of Circusandmagicfan, I'll expand my thoughts. (1) small categories of established schemes, such as "by nationality and occupation" are allowed, see here; (2) yes there are pitfalls (I'm re-cat'ing lots of musicians at present, and speak from experience!) but having no English/Welsh etc sub-cats would be as bad or worse; (3) British magicians are no different from many other "small" UK-wide occupations sub-cat'd in this way (e.g. musicians); (4) I see the point, but the extra click(s) involved aren't sufficient reason to merge, in my view. (You could try creating List of British magicians to keep everyone on the one page, as long as you promise not to blame me if it's deleted!) Bencherlite 01:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above and per every English and Scottish person I've ever known. Doczilla 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Compromise that British magician also be used along with sub-categoriess. UK is the legal nationality of Welsh, Scots and Englisg. I dunnio what some of the objectots are talking about. Even my Plaid Cymru friends have UK passports and don't object to that. OpposeDeletion of sub-categories. They are useful.Brynycwm 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Brynycwm[reply]
    British Magicians would not include the Northern Irish, hence my opposition recorded earlier. -- Ratarsed 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no Category:Welsh magicians, which suggests that having these separate categories is too disaggregated.--Simul8 13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wales is far smaller than England, so it doesn't have something to go in every category type that follows. But the same applies to Idaho/California, Nova Scotia/Ontario, and so on. It is no reason not to categorize more accurately. Sumahoy 21:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The reasoning in the proposal's logical. The arguments against seem more about personal opinion. It's a situation where no solution's going to be perfect but the proposal's less flawed than anything advocated so far by opponents. Arguments such as "All British people should be subcategorised to the constituent countries, and a large majority of them are so categorised" (Abberley2) are just statements of opinion with no supporting logic. I thought I read somewhere that Wikipedia has a policy against the argument that "we should do X because its done that way in lots of other articles". The absence of a Welsh subcategory is a bit telling because in my experience Welsh people are possibly the most likely other than Northern Irish republicans to want to differentiate themselves from other British groups (and Northern Irish unionists would take issue with Ratarsed and say in no uncertain terms that they're British). And what about British Asians (who might want to be further sub-divided into Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi and so on). The point is where does it stop because all those subcategories have the same justification as English, Scottish and Northern Irish. As someone who works on databases I heartily recommend that people DON'T go creating categories and subsets unless there is a good practical reason. In the case of magicians I just can't see a practical need. Maybe this is a discussion that needs to be taken to a different level so that the whole UK/British nationality sub-division thing is sorted right across Wikipedia. As a compromise for this situation I'd suggest a single UK category for magicians with UK nationality or working in the UK. Those are fairly simple objective criteria whereas the current subcategories are actually quite subjective and can get very complicated and messy.GTrendall 22:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)GTrendall[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 section.

Category:Scarface[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Scarface (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - couple things here. One, this is capturing two different films with the same title, making it a form of overcategorization by name. Two, the articles related to the later film are interlinked through the main film article and each other, meaning that there is no need for the category as a navigational hub. Otto4711 06:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete FYI, Scarface (1983 film) is actually a remake of Scarface (1932 film). So the films aren't related "in name only". As far as whether this category is actually needed, though, I'd probably agree with Otto that it could be deleted since all of the stuff in the category is or can be easily accessed from the main article. Dugwiki 15:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per as first comment Radio_Orange (talk • contribs) 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep useful for navigation. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per as first comment. --Kleinzach 10:18, 24 April 2007 (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:Remastered albums[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Remastered albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Like the nomination for re-released albums: too broad, dubious in usefulness. Unint 05:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - many if not most/all albums released on DVD are digitally remastered. The albums otherwise have nothing in common to warrant the categorization. Otto4711 06:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, remastering is a fairly common practice. Dugwiki 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per above. It's a fairly common practice, but far from universal: many re-released albums from the analogue age have not been remastered, and there is usually a big improvement in quality in those which have been. I think it's probably quite a useful classification for 1960s albums, and the only reason I support deletion is to avoid category clutter, because this categ would only work if heavily subdivided, and that would create more clutter than remastering merits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Honbicot 17:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivia per above. This really is not a maintainable category. Doczilla 17:43, 21 April 2007 (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:Re-released albums[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Re-released albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If this category were populated to completion, it would probably encompass large portions of the back catalogues of entire record labels. LPs re-released on CD alone would account for many decades of material, and this is not a defining characteristic in any way. Otherwise, there are also albums re-released with changes in content, but it's not clear why this would be a useful characteristic to categorize by, either. Unint 05:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - any number of albums which are otherwise unrelated to each other have been re-released. Not a defining characteristic of the albums. Otto4711 06:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion above. A huge proportion of the albums produced before the mid-1980s have been re-released on CD, and it is not a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nathanian 12:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivia per above. When the vast majority of albums get re-released in one form or another, this is broad beyond uselessness. Doczilla 17:42, 21 April 2007 (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.

Hollywood families containing 4 articles[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. The argument that a cat should be kept because it has four members is not particularly convincing, as we regularly delete cats with more members than that. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Basco family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Beatty family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Carson family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kumar family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, 4 more categories created by User:Number87. These all contain only 4 articles. As far as I can see, none likely to have significant expansion. No reason these can’t just link to each other in the respective article text. --After Midnight 0001 04:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - while the creator of the various categories is not relevant, these categories should be treated as other eponymous family categories have been treated. In each instance, the articles within the categories are easily interlinked with each other so there is no need for the categories as navigational hubs. Otto4711 06:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Four entries doth a category make. Four means the articles are NOT easily interlinked, and that a navigational hub is useful. --TheEditrix2 17:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no, that conclusion can't reasonably be drawn from the existence of the category. There is no magic number of articles that means they articles can't be interlinked, and family members especially are easy and logical to link to each other. Otto4711 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think 4 qualifies as a keep as well although several previous 4 or more categories such as the Baldwin family have been deleted. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per reasons explained by Otto4711. --Kleinzach 10:16, 24 April 2007 (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:Notable places[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Notable places (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Overly broad, not useful. In order to avoid deletion, all places need to be notable. DMacks 04:15, 20 April 2007 (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.

Hollywood families containing 3 articles[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Baio family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bateman family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bava family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bedi family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Berggren family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Cyrus family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jeetendra family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Khanna family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sen family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, 8 of these 9 categories created by User:Number87. These all contain only 3 articles. Only Cyrus is linked to (by a dab page). None likely to have significant expansion forthcoming. No reason these can’t just link to each other in the respective article text. --After Midnight 0001 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - while the creator of the various categories is not relevant, these categories should be treated as other eponymous family categories have been treated. In each instance, the articles within the categories are easily interlinked with each other so there is no need for the categories as navigational hubs. Otto4711 06:09, 20 April 2007 (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:Settlements in Israel[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamrtalk 12:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Israel to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Israel
  • Propose renaming Category:Communal settlements in Israel to Category:Communal cities, towns and villages in Israel
  • Propose renaming Category:Religious settlements in Israel to Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel
  • Nominators rationale: The term "settlements" is loaded when discussing Israel, and someone might think that an article tagged with one of these categories is one of the "settlements." (Those settlements are in Category:Israeli settlements.) This new pattern is already in use, for some reason, at Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Netherlands. --Eliyak T·C 04:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Eliyak T·C 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Eliyak T·C 04:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose move "Settlements" by definition covers "Cities, towns and villages." No need to make the title way longer.--Sefringle 04:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - cities, towns and villages in X was, I believe, the original categorization, before Wikipedia moved to settlements in X. This is much more convenient and better organization. It's also standard, and Israel shouldn't be special - by moving the category as you suggest, we'd be creating the difference between Israel and the rest of the world, instead of pointing it out. We can do that simply by placing a note such as: This category is about cities, towns and villages in Israel. For Israeli settlements, see Category:Israeli settlements. Moreover, and this is a less important reason, there are some resorts and industrial zones which can loosely be called settlements, but they are not cities, towns or villages. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 06:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cities, towns and villages" was never the standard, it was only used for the few countries where there is no distinction between all three tiers of settlement. There are still dozens of separate categories for cities, for towns, for villages, and for combinations of two of those things. There was no community decision to introduce the settlements hierarchy, it was created just recently and largely by one user (User:Hmains) in the face of complaints from multiple users that it was unneeded and sematically inaccurate. Abberley2 13:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose move - ALL residential areas in Israel are settlements. If the meaning of the word 'settlement' has negative connotation, or might seem derogatory, then why enforce this misuse? Nothing wrong with using this word. And frankly, I'm sure most Arabic editors will agree too :-) --Shuki 13:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to political sensitivity of the term (comparable to category:Transportation in Australia, which is of course not used as category:transport in Australia is preferred). Abberley2 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Note that per the associated article Israeli settlement the term "settlement" has a distinct meaning from "town/city/village". Specifically, as described in the article, "Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by Israeli Jews in territory that came under Israel's control as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War." Thus this makes settlements a distinct type of entity from towns that are not within the territory involved in the Six-Day War. Therefore do not rename as there is apparently a true distinction between "settlements", which are in the territory occupied after the war, and "towns/cities/villages" which include places that were not part of the war. Dugwiki 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exactly my point. The category called Category:Settlements in Israel, which I propose renaming, does not deal with the "settlements" in the west Bank! (Category:Israeli settlements does.) I want the former category renamed because "settlement" has a specific meaning in Israel. As far as I am concerned, you are supporting my argument by being confused in exactly the way I described. --Eliyak T·C 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, ok, I didn't realize that there were two very similarly named categories: Category:Settlements in Israel and Category:Israeli settlements. I struck out my oppose recommendation because I was incorrectly thinking we were talking about changing the name of the category that was intended to include "Israeli settlements", which this is not. Dugwiki 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dugwiki. "Settlement" has a precise and distinct meaning in Israel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is what Category:Israeli settlements is for. Oliver Han 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong support renaming (changing my !vote). Many thanks to those who were kind enough to leave messages on my talk page pointing out that I had misunderstood that there were two categories with similar names. My confusion (and that of Dugwiki) illustrate very well why the reaming is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is NOT the category for the "precise and distinct meaning [of settlement] in Israel. Oliver Han 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to clear up distinction between Category:Israeli settlements and Category:Settlements in Israel Thanks to Oliver for pointing this out to me. We apparently have two very similarly named categories that are intended to house slightly different things. Category:Israeli settlements includes the settlements in the territory involved in the six day war, and Category:Settlements in Israel includes any community in any part of Israel that could commonly be called a settlement such as villages, towns, etc. Having two such similar sounding names with different purposes seems pretty confusing. I definitely support any way to rename one or the other to make clear the distinction. So if "Category:Israeli settlements" stays as it is and "Category:Settlements in Israel" were renamed to "Communities in Israel", for example, or "Villages and towns in Israel", that would be ok with me. Anything to help disambiguate the names of the two categories. Dugwiki 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I suggest avoiding the word "communities", because it has at times been used by est Bank settlers as a less loaded term for settlements on the West Bank. Whatever anyone's views on the merits of that usage, it means that using the word "communities" for towns, villages etc inside the green line may lead to some of the confusion we seek to avoid.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Rename to avoid confusion Bluap 22:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not rename Category:Settlements in Israel as this term is used in the same manner for 180-some countries (many before I started to work on this subject).
  • Rename either or both Category:Communal settlements in Israel and Category:Religious settlements in Israel to reflect the unique needs of Israel. Do not let one situation (Israel) control the Settlements naming for the rest of the world Hmains 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Consider renaming all the others too. Nathanian 12:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The current name is misleading, as this discussion has shown very clearly. Honbicot 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is fascinating. A NPOV 'settlements by country' super-cat already exists with 190 countries represented, but the 'consensus' here is different because with regard to Israel, the word 'settlement' means something else? The only way that this 'rename' is valid, is if all 'settlements by country' are changed as well. There is no contradiction to the two cats. --Shuki 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per conventions of Category:Settlements by country -- Prove It (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would have been my knee-jerk reaction too, but one has to wonder if you have read the debate, as you haven't addressed the issue here at all. AshbyJnr 08:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - per WP:COMMONNAME. This category is in reference to settlements i.e. towns and villages. However, when used in Israel, the term is always associated with settlements in the West Bank and formerly in Gaza. This is a political term. While many Wikipedia savvy users such as those who vote on such things know the conventions, the average web surfer does not. The term is loaded, and should be treated as such. --יהושועEric 19:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seems like an unfortunate collision between (WP) convention, and conventional usage (in general). But either way, if we're trying to resolve the confusion between the two, surely one shouldn't be a sub-cat of the other, as at present? Alai 08:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/rename per nom. AshbyJnr 08:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename despite the fact that I generally really dislike this sort of inconsistency. The potential for confusion (as evidenced by Dugwiki and BrownHairedGirl in this very debate) is simply too high. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds", as King Ralph is alleged to have said. Xtifr tälk 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename While "settlement" is normally a standard geographical term, we need to look at context; allowing for this, a rename would improve the encyclopaedia.--Simul8 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename I love consistency, and I hate it when different article follow different convention, but not when there will be confusion like this. Wikipedia is here to educate, and any rule or convention that hinders that should be ignored. All rules have exceptions. Jon513 17:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All rules have exceptions. - That is definitely not WP policy, and frankly a bad way to look at life. --Shuki 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, it is supported by policy, and is an excellent way to look at life, IMO. Especially when applied recursively. The ability to cope with paradox is what separates us from fictional robots! :) --Xtifr tälk 22:08, 27 April 2007 (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 section.

Hollywood families containing 2 articles[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Avildsen family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kher family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, 2 more categories created by User:Number87. Both contain only 2 articles and I see nothing in any to indicate that expansion is forthcomoing. The Avildsen's are father/son, the Kher's are husband/wife. --After Midnight 0001 03:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is insufficient material to warrant these eponymous family categories. The articles within them can easily be linked to each other. Otto4711 03:55, 20 April 2007 (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:Andersen family[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Andersen family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category contains only one article, and I see nothing in that article or its sources to indicate to me that any more will be forthcoming. After Midnight 0001 03:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is no need for this category. Otto4711 03:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kleinzach 04:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which Andersen family?--Simul8 12:54, 25 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Romantic operas[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 12:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romantic operas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete As discussed on the Opera Project, this is not a genuine opera genre or a subject covered by any of the opera reference books (print), and the few operas now so categorized are random. - Kleinzach 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I am unable to find any such discussion on that page. Lesnail 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is on the Project talk page. --Kleinzach 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too broad to be useful. --Folantin 07:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Not a genuine genre: or, at least, not a genre that someone didn't think up in school one day. Moreschi Talk 07:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion This is a designation given to certain operas by their librettists and/or composers, mainly German/Austrian works by Weber, Marschner, Schubert, Spohr, Bruch, Kreutzer and Wagner. If confined to these works, it forms a perfectly valid category. --GuillaumeTell 11:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Romantic music is a well-defined and universally accepted category. It refers to music written in a certain style during a certain time period. A Roamntic opera is an opera with romantic music. Lesnail 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems encyclopedic and per GuillaumeTell it seems rightly kept. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - German romanticism - as described by GuillaumeTell above is a movement rather than a stylistic genre (e.g. Singspiel). On the other hand Lesnail's broad definition "A Romantic opera is an opera with romantic music." begs the question, what is Romantic music? Comparing the comments of GuillaumeTell and Lesnail really illustrates the difficulty of keeping this as as clear, unambiguous and viable category. I suppose one solution would be to rename the category as 'German Romantic operas' (or 'Romantischen Opern' - if that is correct?) and make reference to the section in German opera. - Kleinzach 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable period/genre intersection; see Romantic music#Romantic opera. Possibly Romantic era operas to make this clearer? Sandstein 09:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sandstein aptly illustrates the problem here. In the original reference to "Romantic opera" at Project talk page the Romantic music article is quoted: The era of Romantic music is defined as the period of European classical music that runs roughly from the early 1800s to the first decade of the 20th century. . . This is simplistic (and please note that the article has been tagged for lacking sources). If we accepted this definition here, we would have to put half our opera articles (perhaps 700 to 900) in that same category - not a dozen or so early 19th German century works as suggested by GuillaumeTell. Please reconsider whether this is either accurate or sensible. Thank you. --Kleinzach 13:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's looking to me as if the best solution is to retitle the category as suggested by Kleinzach up above and removing the small number of operas currently there that don't fit. This won't stop people adding Tristan und Isolde or Arabella to the category (even if there's an explanation of its limited scope), of course, but periodic weeding shouldn't be too arduous. I entirely agree that putting in all operas from the Romantic period isn't sensible. Nor is putting in all the operas which focus on a romantic relationship (about 80% of all operas, I'd guess!). --GuillaumeTell 18:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment OK. 'Romantischen Opern' then? --Kleinzach 10:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Fine as far as I'm concerned. Can we just rename it (and change the opera entries that correctly point to it) or do we have to wait for this discussion to be closed? --GuillaumeTell 10:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the Wikiproject. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a widely used term. Aren't we here to make life easier for users?--Simul8 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Romantic is indeed a widely used adjective but that is not the same thing as a category. --Kleinzach 11:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment But if romantic operas is a widely used term, shouldn't it have a category?--Simul8 11:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment So there should be categories for exciting opera, boring opera, long opera, short opera, big opera, small opera? These adjectives are also very widely used. The point is that they are not specific, they are not genres. -- Kleinzach 03:15, 28 April 2007 (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 section.

Category:Moral panics[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. >Radiant< 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Moral panics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this is akin to the "...by societal reaction" categories we've deleted of late. The category is pulling together things which got flurries of media attention that in the opinion of an editor rose to some arbitrary, unquantifiable level. "Moral" is a POV-ridden word which makes for a poor categorization. The things so categorized have little or nothing in common with each other. Otto4711 01:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. - Kleinzach 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The description of the term moral panic in the article indicates that it suffers from severe POV problems. It cannot be used for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 07:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with prejudice. Irretrievably POV. Moreschi Talk 07:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Abberley2 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Moral panic is a very useful concept, and a very interesting way of analysing public controversies, but its application is too vague to make it a useful categorisation. Additionally, the particular usage of the word "moral" may lead to confusion about the category's purpose. I wish, though, that we had some other terminology to create a similar category which would allow some of these themes to be linked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fine example of a concept that makes for a good article but which is too subjective to be used as a category or list inclusion criteria. Dugwiki 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I would, however, propose a more quantifiable name: Ethics controversies. --TheEditrix2 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category has an article that defines its scope, and which is cited in the introductory text; as such, confusion based solely on the title is not really a reason to delete this. "Moral panic" is a term of art that means something more specific than the words themselves indicate. The individual articles so categorized seem largely to make the case that they belong in such a category. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The first sentence in moral panic says, "A moral panic is a reaction by a group of people based on the false or exaggerated perception that some cultural behavior or group, frequently a minority group or a subculture, is dangerously deviant and poses a menace to society." This requires making several subjective judgments. First, editors have to determine whether or not the "reacting" people have "false or exaggerated" perceptions, which requires subjectively judging the "reacting" people. Second, editors have to determine that the "reacting" people thought that the someone else was "dangerously deviant and poses a menace to society", which requires making another subjective judgment. These two subjective inclusion criteria cause severe problems with the category. People who feel like they or their favorite thing has been unjustly "attacked" by society will put that thing into this category. Even HTTP cookie is in this category. Since the category is subjective and unconstrained, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 19:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per . Dr. Submillimeter. Oliver Han 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague, subjective category. Doczilla 17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smells strongly of POV. "Moral panic" is an elitist term used to disparage popular morality. AshbyJnr 08:50, 24 April 2007 (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/2007_April_20&oldid=1138541145"