Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 29

< May 28	May 30 >

May 29

Category:Grand Theft Auto songs

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 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a category to list songs that are featured on a video game series. If there is a need for it, then I suggest that new categories be created for the songs featured on games such as Madden NFL and so forth. Darwin's Bulldog 23:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mowsbury 07:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the songs on the list are not defined by having been included. If desired the articles on the individual games can have a list. Otto4711 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 30 May 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 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:Three Point Play

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 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Three Point Play (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) In basketball, a three point play occurs when a player makes a two-point shot despite being fouled, then has the chance to score a third point on a single free throw attempt. In the average game, this happens several times. This category, even if made plural and lowercase, wouldn't be very useful, unless we are going to be writing about individual plays of individual games. — CharlotteWebb 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - empty and nonsensical, a twofer. Otto4711 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 15:42, 31 May 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 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:Sport by continent

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 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 debate was keep. the wub "?!" 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sport by continent to Category:Sports by continent

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Same reason as Category:Children's sport below. Standard usage is "sports" in almost all categories. Also rename the subcategories such as Category:Sport in Africa to Category:Sports in Africa. Yechiel Man 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A blatant attempt to impose American English against Wikipedia policy. In any case almost all of the national categories use sport. Mowsbury 08:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mowsbury. Seems US-centric. --Beloved freak 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Note that those categories that use "sports" as a plural are correct in all forms of English, so it is not the case that American English predominates. Aviara 02:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aviara. If that is the neutral form then it should be used rather then what is clearly a UK form. Vegaswikian 20:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Aviara. "Sports" is not neutral, it is American English except where it is used as a plural to refer to several sports, which does not apply here. This category does not contain articles about a number of sports which are played only by children, it contains article about sport as played by children. Nathanian 00:53, 4 June 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 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:Children's sport

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 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 debate was keep. the wub "?!" 13:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Children's sport to Category:Children's sports

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, In Category:Sports, the form "Sports" rather than "sport" is conventional, notwithstanding usage in some parts of the world. This is one case where usage should be standardized to make everyone's life easier. Yechiel Man 22:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A blatant attempt to impose American English against Wikipedia policy. This one is particular bad as "Children's sports" reads as though there are separate sports for children. Mowsbury 08:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a blatant attempt to correct an inconsistency in usage. I would not be particularly troubled if all the categories with "sports" were converted to "sport" instead of vice versa, but I think the current ad hoc naming approach is suboptimal. Yechiel Man 14:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the category is a mix of "sport" and "sports" subcategories; I guess we'll just have to live with it that way. Carlossuarez46 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Note that those categories that use "sports" as a plural are correct in all forms of English, so it is not the case that American English predominates. Aviara 02:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aviara. If that is the neutral form then it should be used rather then what is clearly a UK form. Vegaswikian 20:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aviara opposed the nomination, and you have misunderstood his or her comment. Nathanian 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Sports" is not neutral, it is American English except where it is used as a plural to refer to several sports, which does not apply here. This category does not contain articles about a number of sports which are played only by children, it contains article about sport as played by children. Nathanian 00:53, 4 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Muslim musicians

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per previous discussion of Category:Muslim actors and also per intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Spellcast 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, important to show religion of musician, this should be no different from Category:Jewish musicians
Comment This category has been previously discussed and resulted in a rename to Category:Performers of Islamic music. Also, Jewish musicians is more ambiguous than Muslim musicians Spellcast 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Performers of Islamic music means a preformer who preforms islamic music, Category:Muslim musicians means a muslim musician who doesn't have to preform islamic music, can be any music. How is Jewish musicians is more ambiguous than Muslim musicians? Bazel 23:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per the numerous similar categories we have on wikipedia.--Sefringle 05:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreation per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_16#Category:Muslim_musicians and merge appropriate entries into Category:Performers of Islamic music. Doczilla 05:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, do not merge - Categorization of performers by their religion itself is inappropriate, as religion may have nothing to do with the average musician's performance. (This should also apply to Category:Jewish musicians in my opinion.) However, categorizing musicians by the type of music that they perform is appropriate, which is why Category:Performers of Islamic music exists. (This should also apply to Category:Performers of Jewish music in my opinion.) This discussion on this category was closed very recently, so the recreation of this category is disruptive. Also, I spent a lot of time cleaning up Category:Performers of Islamic music (and learning about Islamic music), so I would hate to see Category:Muslim_musicians merged into Category:Performers of Islamic music. Dr. Submillimeter 08:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreation of deleted stuff. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is deleted, we should also delete Category:Jewish musicians
Delete Changed vote to delete after I saw it was deleted in previous cfd.--Sefringle 07:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Egyegy 05:07, 4 June 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 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:Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the material in the category does not need a category for navigational purposes, especially in light of the navtemplate. Otto4711 19:26, 29 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Dreams

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the one article not for a person doesn't need its own category. Otto4711 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (These CfDs would be better handled if merged into one.) Pavel Vozenilek 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but past mass nominations of this sort have tended to bog down into "keep this one, delete that one" and "keep all, too complex to consider all at once" !votes. I'd rather avoid that sort of thing if I can. Otto4711 21:56, 3 June 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 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:The Amanda Show

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the category is being used as an improper person by project category. Absent the improperly categorized articles the one remaining article doesn't need its own category. Otto4711 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is mostly the categorization of performer by performance or people by their works. The category does not contain enough articles on just the show to justify keeping it. Dr. Submillimeter 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 30 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Inventor

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 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 debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absent the improperly categorized articles on people associated with the show, the remaining two articles do not need a category to navigate between them. Otto4711 19:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 22:34, 2 June 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 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:Auf Wiedersehen, Pet

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - following cleanup of the category, the remaining material does not warrant it for navigation. Otto4711 18:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 30 May 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 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:Euroasian history

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 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 debate was merge Category:Euroasian history to Category:Eurasian history. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be called Eurasian history instead, I don't think there's much doubt about it. I'm not sure how to list as a speedy rename. Oreo Priest 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both "Euroasian" and "Eurasian" are acceptable spelling alternatives. If we can establish which one is more commonly used, I would support a rename. Spellcast 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Category:Eurasian history; maybe it should be merged? --JWB 21:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, merge to Category:Eurasian history. Spellcast 21:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Eurasian history. Johnbod 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder about the validity of these categories. E.g. Astrakhan Khanate or Khazars had appeared and disappeared long time before modern definition of Europe-Asia boundaries. The category may be original research, invented here, just because it is possible. I suggest to delete if it is not supported by outside references. Pavel Vozenilek 22:21, 2 June 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 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:North America exclusive video games

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 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 debate was delete . — CharlotteWebb 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Delete - This category has been around a long time, it hasn't been populated like it was requested. But I have been removing a number of games from it because they have in fact been released in the UK and Europe. It seems that this category could be wrong. From what I can tell there doesn't seem to truly be any video games that are exclusive to North America only. So I think this category should be delete on that note. It is hardly that populated either. Govvy 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No video game can be exclusive to North America any more. Doczilla 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mowsbury 08:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Beloved freak 19:14, 30 May 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 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:Lucky Louie

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category formerly contained several screen shots for the series and nothing else. I proposed renaming to "Lucky Louie images" to reflect the actual contents. No one else commented on the CFR and it was oddly closed "no consensus." Huh. So I have now recategorized all of the images under Category:Lucky Louie images which resulted in this category now being empty. So it can be deleted as an empty category. Otto4711 15:44, 29 May 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 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:Villages in Lubartów County

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 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 debate was merge Category:Villages in Lubartów County to Category:Villages in Lublin Voivodeship. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Villages in Lublin Voivodeship, convention of Category:Villages in Poland. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedy merge/delete per nom. Newbie not oriented in existing structure. Pavel Vozenilek 22:23, 2 June 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 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 Navy cruiser subtypes

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also :Category:United States Navy heavy cruisers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and its CFD
Delete. These categories subdivide the United States cruiser categories unnecessarily and are redundant to Category:Cruisers of the United States. They were all created on May 27. All of this information is best communicated in list form, at List of United States Navy cruisers. Dividing cruisers into four categories is totally unnecessary. TomTheHand 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think this area is probably categorised enough as it is. The Land 13:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. No need for further subdivision. --Victor12 13:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep but repurpose~~. I am concerned about the haste with which some editors are proceeding to delete naval categories without making a wider examination of the confused naval categories. If people want to take action now, then please note that these shops were all part of classes built to fairly standard designs; the individual ships should be removed from these categories, and the relevant classes added a subcategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Ships has a detailed categorization guideline which categorizes these ships as "cruisers." It is not necessary to divide the cruiser category into four subcategories. You appear to be suggesting that we place these ships into categories by class; they are already subdivided in that way. TomTheHand 15:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Categorization, and sorry if I was not clear. What I mean is that these subtype categories should contain only the relevant class categories, as in the following examples using made-up class names

Category:United States Navy light cruisers to include Category:Tulip-class cruisers, Category:Daffodil-class cruisers and no individual articles
Category:United States Navy heavy cruisers to include Category:Hamster-class cruisers, Category:Gerbil-class cruisers and no individual articles.

However, I think that such any such categories should be called Category:United States Navy light cruisers classes etc, so my suggestion is basically for a new category. This isn't the place to do that, so I will change my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (changing my !vote). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization. Carom 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an overly fastidious excercise in over-categorisation. Emoscopes ^Talk 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of existing category structure outlined by Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Categorization. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:37, 30 May 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 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:Coloreds

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 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 debate was rename Category:Coloreds to Category:Cape Coloureds. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, How do we define mixed descent? See also discussion of May 28th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename This is a specific, presumably self-defined (nowadays), large population group in South Africa, with a very specific history. See Cape Coloured and Coloured. Those editors who are obsessive about the need to able to define all categories precisely can refer to the Apartheid legislation if they like; it covered the subject very fully! PS Rename per my comment below.Johnbod 14:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod, but for clarity would it not be better to rename to Category:Coloured people? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does or did the designation "coloured" exist legally anywhere outside S. Africa? If not, would it make sense to rename the category to reflect that it's for people who are/were classified as "coloured" under the S. African legal system? Otto4711 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: however much these people may enjoy applying this term to themselves, it's still potentially quite confusing to an international audience. Although the term is fairly unpopular in the United States and Europe now, it was, for much of the early twentieth century, the politically correct term for persons of African descent with dark skin, and it is still enshrined in the full name of the NAACP, which is still one of the most influential civil rights groups in the US. Beyond that, there's the issue that every person in the world is colored in the most generic sense (which is partly why the label has lost popularity in the international arena). If the category is kept, I strongly feel that it should be renamed to disambiguate it from more generic (and international) senses of "colored people". Perhaps something like Category:South African coloureds (I'm assuming that SA actually uses the Commonwealthish spelling, though that should be checked). I also think there's a strong argument for renaming Coloured, but that's a topic for another day. Xtifr _tälk 19:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename for clarification. There is no way that this can be applied correctly with consistency. The term had a clear American connotation that can be offensive. Without a name that makes the context clear, this must go. Doczilla 06:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, it should probably be renamed to match Coloured or Cape Coloureds. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with rename; Category:Cape Coloureds is most specific, but any of those suggested would be ok. My !vote above amended. Johnbod 13:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to any appropriate name that makes explicit the fact that it's a grouping specific to South Africa. It's a valid and useful term in that context, even as it's problematic elsewhere; make the category ZA-specific and the problem disappears. Bearcat 22:44, 6 June 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 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:Closed Victoria railway stations

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 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 debate was rename Category:Closed Victoria railway stations to Category:Closed railway stations in Victoria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Closed Victoria railway stations to Category:Closed railway stations in Victoria

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to standard word order for categories of buildings and structures. Craig.Scott 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per standard form. Spellcast 22:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, I actually thought that this was related to the Victoria Line when I first saw it. Consistent naming will reduce confusion as well as being good in its own right. (I also spent a few moments trying to figure out how Victoria, B.C. could possibly have so many closed railway stations, but that's a separate matter.) Xtifr _tälk 22:14, 30 May 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 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:Newsradio

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category claiming to be for Wikipeia content, but the only page categorized here is the user page of the author. Od Mishehu 11:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a functional category. Dr. Submillimeter 13:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 05:56, 30 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Catholic primates not in communion with Rome

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 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 debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic primates not in communion with Rome to Category:Catholic primates

Merge - This is an unnecessary layer of categorization between Category:Catholic primates and Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches. Dr. Submillimeter 08:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Upmerge~~ to Category:Catholic primates. This is a redundant layer, another of many redundant or or ill-named sub-categories of Category:Primates (religion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Keep for now (changing my !vote) and reassess together with related categories in a group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge There is no description in the header to give any information on this category - how is it different from Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches? -- roundhouse 16:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In turn there is no description in the header of Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches to suggest that it contains anything other than Category:Primates of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, which contains just 1 article. So we have a tower of 3 categories supported by 1 article. This is absurd. -- roundhouse 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that observation: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 30#Category:Primates_of_Independent_Catholic_Churches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one -upmerge the other Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches- May 30 link just above. For clarity the "not in communion with Rome" is the most useful information. With these two nominations we are in danger of pitching these/this into the normal Catholic category, which is certainly wrong. We should not really have these two noms running separately but a couple of days apart, I feel. I could lose the Brazilian category too. But there are potentially others - eg Old Catholic primates? Johnbod 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whereas the title itself describes inclusion. There are other such Primates, but the articles have not yet been written or identified. Pastorwayne 12:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The parallel discussions on Category:Catholic primates not in communion with Rome and Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches is confusing. I would recommend closing both discussions and starting a new one to discuss both categories. (One of the categories should probably be deleted, but people have differing opinions on which one should be deleted.) Would this be acceptable to other people? (Also note that I struck out my merge vote; I now think that Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches should be merged into this one.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it best to start a new discussion. Johnbod 10:28, 1 June 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 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:Roberts family

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 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 debate was {{listify}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per many precedents. This isn't the only Roberts family in the world. This isn't the only fictional Roberts family. Wryspy 07:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete - articles are far superior for illustrating family relationships, fictional or otherwise. Otto4711 12:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per Otto4711 Bulldog123 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:27, 30 May 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 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:Horton family

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 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 debate was listify. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per many precedents. This isn't the only Horton family in the world. This isn't the only fictional Horton family. Wryspy 07:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete - articles are far superior for illustrating family relationships, fictional or otherwise. Otto4711 12:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per Otto Bulldog123 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:27, 30 May 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 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:Brady family

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 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 debate was {{listify}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per many precedents. This isn't the only Brady family. This isn't the only fictional Brady family. Wryspy 07:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete - articles are far superior for illustrating family relationships, fictional or otherwise. Otto4711 12:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per Otto Bulldog123 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 30 May 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 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:DiMera family

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 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 debate was listify. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per many, many precedents for deleting these family categories. Don't categorize people by family because other families have that last name too. Don't categorize fictional characters by family name because real families can have that name. Also, it makes them sound like a real family. Per WP:OC, you can't turn around and start categorizing unrelated people solely on the basis of sharing that name either. Wryspy 07:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete - articles are far superior for illustrating family relationships, fictional or otherwise. Otto4711 12:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per Otto Bulldog123 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --GentlemanGhost 21:08, 3 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

World music WikiProject rename

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 as nominated, but with importance decapitalized.--Mike Selinker 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Regional and national music/Definitions which was linked from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World music, "WikiProject World music" is being renamed (and slightly reduced in scope) to "WikiProject Regional and national music". The associated categories need to be renamed. It would be wonderful if we could make the following moves:
Category:WikiProject World music -> Category:WikiProject Regional and national music
- Category:WikiProject World music articles -> Category:WikiProject Regional and national music articles

If there's some way to accelerate the process, that would be nice too.

-- TimNelson 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, but differently. The changing of the project's name provides a useful opportunity to ensure that the categories include the term "Wikiproject", to identify the more clearly as Wikiproject maintenance categories. The revised list is below, but note there are no speedy criteria for this nomination: this one has to run through the normal CfD process.
Category:WikiProject World music -> Category:WikiProject Regional and national music
- Category:WikiProject World music articles -> Category:WikiProject Regional and national music articles
Support as suggested by TimNelson. Assessment categories have their own naming conventions, see Category:WikiProject Antarctica articles for a good example. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except Category:Unassigned-importance World music articles should become Category:Category:Unknown-importance Regional and national music articles, to follow the convention of Category:Unknown-importance articles. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, I have revised my list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query could we Fix The Capitalization on these? >Radiant< 10:47, 7 June 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.

Wrong title categories

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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories appear on articles, disrupting the reader experience, without serving any benefit, since they are not maintenance categories. Any useful function served by these categories could be served by the whatlinkshere of the relevant templates, without disrupting the category system through the inclusion of non-content categories. (Note that I am not suggesting deletion of the templates.) Christopher Parham (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see what others think of the notion, but in the absence of any counterarguments, I'd be inclined to support this proposal. Xtifr _tälk 08:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion at a previous CFD for a similar category, which was deleted, may be of interest to you. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, that seems fairly persuasive, so Delete. Xtifr _tälk 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These are annoying and uselss categories. Craig.Scott 12:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These do not need to be categorized. Yechiel Man 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that some are useful for maintenance, e.g. to establish misplaced tags. Without the category, I would not have been able to ascertain that the vast majority of the articles in Category:Articles with titles unsupported by Unicode were inappropriately tagged. Especially since there is no way with "what links here" to show only transclusions. I would probably suggest that the Unicode one at least is nuked, but only along with the associated template (a boilerplate message used properly on all of about 3 articles is no good). 81.104.175.145 16:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a lot of fetishism in general about replicating specific marketing gimmicks. I do think they degrade the credibility of the project. But I don't think this is the appropriate place to go about changing this culture. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Keep. The nomination really need to be broken up into three parts
- Sorting/maintenance , this would be the base category (which should be a maintenance category). Because new editor using trial and error editors find {{wrongtitle}} and these need to be sorted to use the proper templates.
- Javascript hack, this would include the underscore, lowercase, sup/subscripting and other HTML markup. Although, a recent AWB be feature Smart underscore removal had initially suggested to use the category before coming up with a different method. It should be easy to implement something like that even without the category.
- Unsupportable which are articles that cannot be supported in the software because of the copy and paste requirements. —Dispenser 03:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing on {{wrongtitle}} suggests that it is not to be used, and indeed it is recommended by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). So it's not clear why you would want to replace the instances. If you did want a maintenance category for the task, use of a category called something like "Articles needing a more specific wrongtitle template" would seem more illustrative. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are often better templates to do what wrong title does. I often see it used where {{lowercase}} would be more suitable. Changing the category name is not preferable since there are some pages that do actually belong there. Likely, the documentation needs to be changed before deleting. —Dispenser 06:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No real opinion on these, except that these sound like "maintenance" categories (more useful to the Project than to readership), and as such (if kept) should be placed on the articles' talk pages. - jc37 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per suggestion from Jc37 Lugnuts 20:28, 6 June 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 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:Game Theory

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 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 debate was speedy close. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose: Remove secretary problem from game theory category list. This is not an example of game theory, instead it is an example of decision theory. Therefore it doesn't belong in the game theory category list.

Speedy close - this is a question of content on the secretary problem article, not a question for CFD. Otto4711 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Otto: we don't do content disputes here. Xtifr _tälk 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Their must be a misunderstanding, this isn't asking for any changes to the content in secretary problem, it is asking for a change in the category: Game Theory. There is a Category: Game Theory, this is asking for it to be modified. There is no request for any changes to be made with the content of any page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.214.152 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the content of the article that puts it in the category. See Help:Category, and note that the procedure for removing an item from a category is the reverse of adding it. Xtifr _tälk 09:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Otto, wrong venue for this discussion. Carlossuarez46 18:29, 30 May 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 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:Gay physicians

Category:LGBT physicians

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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subcat created from Category:LGBT physicians. Parent cat should be kept, this one deleted. SatyrTN (talk - contribs) 04:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was some utility in having a separate category for Category:Gay physicians and Category:Transgender physicians. Both under the Category:LGBT physicians. If not appropriate, then I don't object to merging both categories into one.OsteopathicFreak 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and someone should nominate Category:LGBT physicians and any subcats IF these physicians don't work on LGBT issues. Bulldog123 07:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both This is just irrelevant point-making. Category:LGBT rights activists is encyclopedic, but the rest of the LGBT occupational categories are disconnected from the reasons why the subjects have articles. Craig.Scott 12:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both - trivial intersection. Tarc 14:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge gay physicians to LGBT physicians, keep the parent - not seeing why categorizing LGBT people by profession is any worse than any other division of people by profession. This is the third or 4th round of these to be nominated recently. If someone has a problem with the category structure, maybe they should consider a blanket nomination instead of this piecemeal approach. Otto4711 15:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "worse than any other division of people by profession" because it falls afoul of WP:OCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, which other divisions don't. And let's knock off the paranoia while we're at it. These things tend to come in waves because people see one inappropriate category being nominated, and that reminds them of another one they've come across. And every time this happens, there are shouts about how the particular religious/ethnic/sexual preference group-of-the-week is under attack. Frankly, even if it were true, it would be irrelevant, as long as the nominations are justified by policy or guidelines. What's really under attack is the huge numbers of inappropriate categories created by presumably well-meaning but misguided people. Xtifr _tälk 20:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not the slightest bit paranoid, so with all due respect you can cram that back into whatever hole you pulled it out of. I would note that WP:OCAT does not require that there be no categories for these intersections. Such categories do not automatically "run afoul" of that guideline. Otto4711 21:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Irrelevant intersections. Mowsbury 08:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first category is empty, so it can be speedied. The second category is another grabbag of people who are notable because they do sexuality research, or people who are notable for other LGBT acts who just happen to be physicians. I'm getting tired of all these ownership categories, but in this case it's really clear that none of these people are notable because they are LGBT physicians. Therefore Delete. Mangoe 13:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge then delete the arguments for deletion seem correct; the people should be upmerged to Category:LGBT people and Category:Physicians. Carlossuarez46 18:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both While some occupations have a reasonably possible link between sexualty and direction of a person's career, such as writing and the arts (as a great deal of art has to do with one's personal sexuality and life experiences), others do not. Category:LGBT people by occupation should be limited to occupations for which there is a reasonable link between the person's occupation and their sexual preference. In the case of physicians it's not likely such a connection exists. Therefore delete. Dugwiki 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Dugwiki Greg Grahame 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LGBT physicians I really have to take issue with the idea that there's not a "reasonable possible link" between one's sexuality and the direction of one's medical career, and the idea that being Gay and a writer is somehow a more meaningful distinction than being a gay physician. I think it more than arguable that the single biggest impacting factor to GLBT history, rights, and culture in the last 50 years has been the advent of HIV/AIDS - a disease. A disease that disproportionately effects Gay men, largely because Gays and Lesbians are a demographic long overlooked by the medical establishment. Gay physicians have face and continue to face terrible discrimination, medicine is an incredibly conservative field. Their struggle, is the struggle to improve the health of the gay community. It was gay physicians in the APA that fought to have homosexuality removed from the DSM. The entire gay community is facing a mental health crisis, and it is gay physicians and others in the health care field trying to document the situation and get the funding and recognition to have the health of LGBT people given the same import as the health of the "traditional" family. OsteopathicFreak 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your observation, but your conclusion doesn't follow: not all gay physicians have anything to do what you describe; some are just famous m.d.'s doing their heart transplants, brain surgery, podiatry, or whatever, perhaps a Category:LGBT health activists would be useful, but the mere intersection of sexual orientation and the (very broad) medical profession doesn't seem an appropriate category: can we write an article LGBT doctoring? I don't think so. Carlossuarez46 05:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An LGBT health category would be a very good idea; it could very easily include doctors who have done notable work on LGBT health issues. But a category for doctors who are LGBT doesn't really serve this purpose; not all LGBT doctors work on LGBT health issues, and not all doctors who do work on LGBT health issues are themselves LGBT. Bearcat 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge gay physicians to LGBT physicians, keep the parent per Otto4711 and OsteopathicFreak. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete both. Not a defining categorisation. Pavel Vozenilek 22:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure they're all overjoyed at having spent all those years at medical school wrestling over their sexuality only to be pigeonholed for it. 81.104.175.145 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that a number of the people in the category, for example National Gay and Lesbian Task Force co-founder Howard Junior Brown and Gay Games founder Tom Waddell, would be absolutely thrilled to know that they are remembered as gay doctors and would be quite pissed off at the notion that being identified by their sexuality and profession equates to their being "pigeonholed." Otto4711 02:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In both of those examples, in the contexts you provide being gay is hardly a defining characteristic. It would be a bit like having Category:Presidents of the United States of America by nationality. 81.104.175.145 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sexuality of the founder of a national gay rights organization and the founder of an international gay sports festival isn't the slightest bit defining... Otto4711 04:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. The founders of gay rights organizations will tend to be gay, in much the same way that POTUS will tend to American. So, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstrate that "Gay physician" is a defining intersection, by writing an article on them. WP:OCAT suggests the ability to write such an article as a prerequesite for such intersections. 81.104.175.145 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These good people seem to have written something. Seems like the topic of gay physicians is the subject of clinical research. Which is a pretty good indicator that an article on the topic could be written. Otto4711 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject on which you are looking for materials to support an article on "LGBT physicians" is the field in which they would supposedly practise - "LGBT medicine". 81.104.175.145 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously support LGBT occupational categories when the intersection of LGBT and occupation is an encyclopedically significant topic in its own right (e.g. the fact that LGBT literature is recognized as a specific genre of literature validates Category:LGBT writers, etc.), but I don't think that's the case here — there's nothing inherently encyclopedic about being a gay or lesbian doctor. A general LGBT health category, which could include doctors who are notable specifically for their work on LGBT health issues, makes sense to me, but this grouping doesn't. Delete per WP:CATGRS. Bearcat 22:32, 6 June 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 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:Pogroms

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 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated; if when complete, someone wants to create a jewish specific category, please do so --Kbdank71 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pogroms to Category:Ethnic riots

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Pogrom has a specific meaning and categorizing historically unrelated events as "pogroms" only creates confusion. It is my opinion that if we are to have a pogrom category, then only anti-Jewish riots in the historical European context should be included. Thus, riots against other groups would be excluded, such as at Sumgait, as well as riots against Jews outside of the historical European context, such as at Hebron. The proposed alternative term is "ethnic riot", as used by ethnic conflict specialist Donald Horowitz and discussed in this article. Another possibility I suppose would be "ethnic and religious riots" (though I understand the term "ethnic riot" to generally include religiously-motivated violence).Pharos 03:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the word itself has come to have a much broader meaning in modern English than you suggest. Nevertheless, I agree that the potential for confusion exists. I also wonder if "Ethnic massacres" might not be more appropriate than "Ethnic riots"? When I hear the latter, I tend to think of things like the Watts Riots or the 1992 Los Angeles riots. I also think your idea of limiting the category is plausible. Even though the word does have a broader meaning today, it is still primarily used as you suggest. I'm just not sure what the best solution is yet. Xtifr _tälk 09:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (see end) I agree if pogrom is used it should be restricted to anti-Jewish riots in the modern period. In my view, the nominator is clearly wrong to say: "I understand the term "ethnic riot" to generally include religiously-motivated violence" - that may work for anti-Jewish riots, but becomes very dubious for the many serious Indian ones, and collapses completely in post-Reformation Europe - Popish Plot, Gordon Riots, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre etc. Hardly any of these are in this category, & the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre is not yet in any non-French category of this type, so maybe there is a real need for a category of this sort. Splitting ethnic & religious riots is clearly impossible, so I think it should be Rename to Category:Ethnic and religious riots. Currently Category:Riots has a "by country" & "by year" structure, but not much by type beyond sport, music & so on. Category:Religious riots has one article - that should be merged with this one. Johnbod 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~see responsive comment below an umbrella category for Ethnic & religious riots may be created, and the items that properly belong there rather than Pogroms in its original meaning should be moved, but Pogroms seem to be a distinctive enough subset to retain categorization. Otherwise, some would argue (plausibly) that what do the 1992 Los Angeles riots have to do with Kristallnacht? Carlossuarez46 18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a sub-cat for pogroms (being anti-Jewish riots in the modern period) but the current contents come from all times, places & peoples. It is better to rename this & then separate out to a new sub-cat, perhaps: "anti-Jewish pogroms" to avoid ambiguity. Johnbod 21:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that more easily accomplished by creating an umbrella to this one, depopulating this except for those anti-Jewish ones that we want kept in something called "pogroms" (or something like it) by moving those articles to the umbrella, or by renaming this and then creating a new subcat as you describe? The end result I can agree with, whichever is the easier to do. Carlossuarez46 05:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked most of them quickly they seem split about 50/50, so I suppose it's about the same; I think this needs renaming for clarity anyway. Johnbod 21:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Keep pogroms restricted to Jewish pogroms, reserve the "ethnic riots" newspeak for modern era, if it is that necessary. Pavel Vozenilek 22:29, 2 June 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 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:Cruisers of the United States

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 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 debate was keep. the wub "?!" 14:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cruisers of the United States to Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy

~~Merge~~. We don't need two categories to cover this. Merging can wait for the outcome of the discussions. Vegaswikian 01:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Per my comments at CfD for Category:United States Navy heavy cruisers, there are two parallel hierarchies for naval ships: Category:Ships by navy and Category:Naval ships by country. The fate of these two overlapping hierarchies should be considered more widely before picking off individual categories, but the two hierarchies are being used differently: one appears to subdivide types of ship my class, whereas the other doesn't. This is a big mess, but an hasty merger of one of the relevant categories is not the way to resolve it. As proposed yesterday, I suggest that a broader discussion of the very confused naval ships category should be urgently undertaken, rather than making piecemeal changes before we have considered the whole. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree completely with BrownHairedGirl; if any merging is to occur, the entire hierarchies should be merged. I would personally prefer merging in the other direction so that ships are categorized by country, but all past attempts to merge one hierarchy into the other have just resulted in bickering and no consensus. TomTheHand 11:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per BrownHairedGirl amd TomTheHand. Let's get this agreed upon at WP:Ship and the Maritime History Taskgroup before making any decision. ==Harlsbottom 15:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The redundancy of the dual category system is useful and should not be gotten rid of. Countries and Navies have come and gone over the years, and it is not always entirely possible to exclude one at the price of the other. (Think, Imperial Russia, Soviet Union, Modern Russia. Think, Imperial China, Nationalist China, Communist China, Taiwan etc.) Emoscopes ^Talk 19:14, 29 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.