< May 17	May 19 >

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 17:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Number-one singles in the United Kingdom to Category:UK Singles Chart number-one singles

Nominator's rationale: Precedent seems to be to name Number One singles by chart (e.g. "Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles"). The category "Number-one singles in Canada" was recently split into three parent categories based on the names of its charts, and I see no reason why other foreign charts should be different, even if only one chart exists in that country. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – there is the article UK Singles Chart; and to judge from the bbc website, the term is indeed in use. Occuli (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Implicated in 2009 British Parliamentary Expenses Scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete? New category; would like to see a discussion on its appropriateness. Defined as "those Members of the UK Parliament who have been implicated in the 2009 British Parliamentary Expenses Scandal. That an MP appears in this category makes no statement of guilt nor innocence. It simply means that they have been implicated." That is a fairly loose standard, and "implicated" is not further defined. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to categorise people because they were implicated in an event. WP:BLP may also have to be considered in this regard.. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While doubtless the wording at the top can be improved, and doubtless a simple list will appear as well, this is a wholly appropriate and dare I say useful index into the names of the huge number of UK MPs who have been implicated in this huge political scandal. To satisfy BLP you only need to look at the fact that they have been implicated, and in reliable sources. This is a current event, but the fact of their being implicated will not go away. Later management of the category can include subcategories to show those judged to be criminally liable, those exonerated and those sacked by their parties. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not defining. (The dwindling Category:MPs not yet implicated in 2009 British Parliamentary Expenses Scandal would be easier to deal with, and will become empty in a few weeks and can then be deleted.) Occuli (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Please explain "not defining" in the light of a relevant Wikipedia policy. Not all of the pigs have had their snouts in the trough, you know. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, for instance our Great Helmsman Gordon Brown is in there, grossly defamatory (just because his brother paid their cleaner) ... seriously, I agree with Avenue, below, that for most MPs it will be a minor footnote on their careers by say 2011, not a 'defining' characteristic. For others it will be disastrous ... patience, Fiddle Faddle, events will unfurl. Must go - time to clean the moat. Occuli (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename, Implicated needs to be reworded to something definitive, something along the lines of 2009 British Members of Parliament who repaid expenses after they were published; preferably slicker.—Teahot (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection to renaming it. I proposed it for discussion on the main article's talk page, prior to creation, but no takers, so I created it anyway. I am not wedded to the title. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While an article about a notable scandal such as this would obviously be valid, under absolutely no circumstances should we be categorizing people by their involvement in it. Delete and salt category, but listify if the article doesn't already contain a list. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you need to justify what you have just said with reference to policies here. I see no reason whatsoever not to so categorize people. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OCAT; impossible and unmaintainable profusion of category bloat if such categories were created for every single political scandal; categorize only on defining characteristics; differences in the roles and appropriateness of categories, lists, and navigation templates. A category is not automatically the appropriate or correct way to handle any batch of articles that can possibly be grouped on any common characteristic whatsoever — CFD has a long, substantial and very well-developed history of determining what should be a category and what should only be a list, and any category that can be genericized as "people who held X job and also did Y" is a pretty textbook example of the kind of thing that shouldn't be a category.Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I have read what you have said carefully and am now better informed, but I disagree with its application here. I see sufficient uniqueness about this group of people that a category is justified. I do agree about "every single political scandal" but this is one that is not run of the mill and may alter the UK Parliament substantially. It is the very number of MPs implicated that is causing this, together with their substantial alleged abuses and massive public anger of a kind not seen before. So I plead "Special case" here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I just don't particularly understand why it necessitates a category rather than a list, which can go into far more detail about what each individual MP's purported involvement is — and can be properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see this as a "list vs category" debate at all. It seems to me that a list with all of the virtues that you describe can and should coexist with a category (perhaps better named). WP positively encourages coexistence of cats and lists after all, since both provide a different way in to the underlying information. I've never understood, except in very special cases, why one or the other only is appropriate. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Might be too early for a cat. Maybe better to tabulate them on this page under name ^[who?], amout repaid, comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CottonGrass (talk • contribs)

• Delete. This gives undue weight to a single crisis - falling foul of recentism - and it includes those who were told by the Fees Office that their claims were fine. Is the inclusion criteria whether the media has made a fuss over their expense? This issue doesn't warrant a category. Fences and windows (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If people like Silvio Berlusconi (Italy), Boris Yeltsin (Russia) and Richard Nixon (USA) can be brought to book over there criminal acts in office, then why not the British parliament (Lab/Con/LDP/DUP/SF). Either categorise or list them, but they must be named and shamed!!! --86.29.240.82 (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC) — 86.29.240.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• It's not Wikipedia's job to be the namer and shamer of scandal-plagued politicians. Read WP:NPOV. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Berlusconi is not in any scandal-type categories. Neither is Yeltsin, unless one wishes to stretch a point for Category:People of the Chechen wars. Nixon is in exactly one, Category:Watergate figures and that is neutrally named and does not serve to "name and shame" him, which as already noted is not the role of Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. I have no objection to categories like this appearing in the fullness of time, but I think it's too early to say whether the scandal will have such an impact on any MP that it would qualify as one of their defining characteristics. In particular, no one has resigned or been sacked yet as a result. It would be better to rely on a list at present. -- Avenue (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shahid Malik has resigned as a result Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as all 600+ MPs will end up here once the full receipts are published in July. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 'Implicated' is a very loose definition. ninety:one 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is really an argument for renaming instead of deletion. Tightening the definition, the name and the inclusion criteria is a perfectly sound option and a wholly valid outcome of this current discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete'. Vague and meaningless. Recentism at its worst. MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "recentism at its worst" is not a very pleasant comment. It was brief at least, but I take issue with the effect that your words have. Criticise me with logic, or real rationale for creating it, yes, but do not snipe, please. That was just like a drive by shooting. Your comment is an argument for tightening the category, not deleting it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we please avoid the date in the title? Wikipedia really overuses the year in current event titles. As far as I know, this is the only Parliamentary expenses scandal, and if there were others, there's surely a better qualifier for the title than the year. Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just listening to five live and the news, commentators like john pienaar are already saying this scandal is unprecedented, and the Speaker has now gone, apparently first one to be forced out in 300 years, etc. I find the category useful. Calling the category 'vague and meaningless' is pretty dumb since it is clear as anything and its meaning is 'parliamentarians implicated in the 2009 expenses scandal'. And when fences and windows says 'the Fees Office' said they could so they are free of scandal, that is sheer childishness isn't it? Dalyell got nearly 8,ooo for 3 bookcases passed by the Fees Office - does it cease being scandalous? Sayerslle (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is no different from "alleged" and we generally avoid categorizing people by allegation. I agree that a list, which can explain the nature of the implication, who is making the implication, the response of the implicated party and so on. This is the sort of information that needs reliable sources and categories can't provide them. Otto4711 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it is entirely different from "alleged". But I have ceased to care. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the functional difference between, say, "alleged to have killed" and "implicated in the killing of"? Otto4711 (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• These are not allegations. These are cold facts. They are implicated, either procedurally or criminally in this major, groundbreaking scandal. But the category is going to be deleted by the look of things here. I think that's both wrong and stupid (especially with the "it's too soon" arguments, which hold no water at all), but I no longer care. It's wikipedia. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My goodness, how ridiculous. It's a "cold fact" that someone's been implicated? It is just as "cold" a "fact" when allegations have been made. Otto4711 (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've had a look at the Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories and implicated derives from the past participle of the Latin verb implicare, 'fold in' . The original sense then was, 'entwined', 'entangled'. It's use in the category title is pertinent , a good accurate word here I reckon. Sayerslle (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to a List - the word "implicate" is not definitive enough to make an encyclopedic judgement, let alone calculation. It also tars every one of them with the same brush, and potnetially turns Wikipedia into a public and media judging point. This particular issue of British political life has far further to run and will have many more outcomes, which in due time could possibly be appropriately sorted by a suitably named category then. However, at present the claims are at best short of reliable references, as presently unless the individual self implicates in the media, we are left with a reference from a sole source, the presently "obtained by unknown means" Telegraph dBase. This category covers everyone from those who claimed for dog food, to those who could face criminal convictions. To group everyone who simply has an newspaper article written about them in one group seems daft. Put the Telegraph data in a list, highlight the main claims when people self implicate in both the main article on this subject and their individual articles. I look forward to further debate on this subject once further facts and developments emerge. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list pretty much exists at the main article, but the point is that is is clearly becoming a defining matter for many MPs who no one is accusing of anything illegal at all. It is not WP who are making that judgement but the press and public. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in early July, the whole list will be published by the House of Commons. I am sure when some people look through the whole list, every MP will have some claim that looks "interesting" from a media view point. At that point, do we conclude that all MP's are "implicated" in this scandal? What is the criteria for inclusion? Define the criteria for inclusion and exclusion and there's the potential for a category in our encyclopaedia that makes judgement on referenced fact. At the moment, it would seem all MP's will be "implicated" under this category, and its just a question of when the Telegraph publishes their name. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep after some consideration. The longer it goes on the clearer it is that implication will indeed be defining for most of those involved, bringing the careers of many to an end, and severely affecting the future of many others. Equally it seems likely that few will be prosecuted, or classified in some more easily-defined way. Several MPs have had far more national publicity over expense claims of a few hundred pounds than they had ever had in their whole previous careeers. The category might be restricted and renamed, or sub-divided, by those a) who have repaid expenses, or b) have been named in the Daily Telegraph. The listy sections of the article give fuller details, as they should, but I think the category is still useful. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure this will be every bit as defining as the House banking scandal was. You know, that House banking scandal that no one ever talks about or even remembers any more? Give it a month, along comes the next series of Pop Idol or Susan Boyle gets another makeover and the talk about the expense scandal will be "what expense scandal"? Otto4711 (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Congressional scandals has 143 members, including several implicated in this, which was 17 years ago. It is hardly surprising if it is not on everyone's lips today.Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That there are people incorrectly categorized as scandals (thus making actual scandal articles harder to find in the category and reducing the category's overall usefulness) is hardly an argument in favor of this category

• That sounds surprisingly similar to the way an implicated MP would talk, hoping this will be forgotten. Since it is already changing the way UK Parliament operates this is a very strange statement to make. Are you making a political point? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I, an American with no connections of any kind to the UK beyond having visited it once in 1986 for three days, am desperately hoping that this scandal will dry up and blow away and am doing everything in my power to kick dirt over its tracks. You've sussed me out. Otto4711 (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's because you are in the U.S that you are ill placed to judge the waves this story is making in Britain. There is 100% no way that in a month people in Britain will be saying 'what expenses scandal' . When you write that you disqualify yourself from being taken seriously Sayerslle (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, because people in the United States don't ever read news from other countries. Otto4711 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto4711, have you noticed your last 3 comments are sarcastic..don't you think sarcasm is better employed effectively when it isn't over-used? Isn't it reasonable to assume someone in Derby will have a better feeling about the British expenses scandal than someone in Duluth? I love the New York Giants and I'm waiting for September to watch them on Sky but I can't understand the game and love the Giants like someone born and grown up with American football. Of course its not like June 1789 in Paris over this, but it won't be forgotten in a month that's all Im saying. All news is written on air in the final analysis. Only literature as Ezra Pound said is 'news that stays news' Sayerslle (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no reason at all why you can't understand and love the game of football as well as or better than someone from the US. I'm from the American midwest, never lived more than 100 miles from an NFL team, and I can't stand football, so you already love it and understand it better than at least one American. This is like saying that a Brazilian can't understand opera because he wasn't born an Italian. It's a sweeping overgeneralization that can't be justified. Otto4711 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe saying I couldn't love the Giants like an American was a bad example, but I would still maintain about this scandal I'm right, politics isn't like opera or sport, the word itself derives from the Greek polites for citizen, and to get a real feel for the political state of play, I think one has to move amongst the citizenry of a particular place at a particular time to get it. Thats part of the problem in this scandal where the political elite of all parties have developed away from the citizens, living rich and talking down to us. Anyways when is this category issue decided? Sayerslle (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Usually the earliest it could be is 7 days after the discussion started. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (nominator). My nomination was a bit tepid on deletion, but after reading the debate, I'm firmly in favour of deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, "implicate" means "1. show to be involved in a crime". Per WP:BLP, WP:OC#OPINION, and Bearcat's explanation, we should avoid this category. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 13:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Last Comic Standing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper person by performance overcategorization. Without the performers there isn't enough to make the category necessary for navigation. There are a number of navtemplates for various seasons of the program that link the articles together. Otto4711 (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Performer by performance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Category:Ships of Canadian Pacific. Kbdank71 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Canadian Pacific Railway steamships to Category:Ships of the Canadian Pacific Railway Category:Ships of Canadian Pacific

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the naming style of the other eleven similar categories in parent category Category:Ships by company. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Ships of Canadian Pacific since the company/division has had several names, all variations upon "Canadian Pacific", CP itself is the most recognizable form. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good suggestion. Have amended the nom to reflect that wording. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 17:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:People killed by security forces to Category:People killed by security forces during The Troubles (Northern Ireland)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category is unclear in terms of its contents. This category is part of a series that relate to The Troubles in Northern Ireland but is not explicit on this fact. Change to prevent biogs that don't relate to the troubles being added Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, to follow up the Feb cfd. Don't know how this name survived so long! For some of the other fellow-subs of Category:People killed during The Troubles (Northern Ireland) "during The T..." is automatic, as the organizations were only founded during this period, but others should probably also be renamed. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't "People killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army during The Troubles (Northern Ireland)" be a bit long-winded? And as you say the last part is redundant... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People killed by security forces during The Troubles to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, not per Alansohn. While the parent article may be "The Troubles" the parent category was recently renamed to include the "(Northern Ireland)" disambiguator so it makes sense that this should match. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animals who attempted suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is vanishingly unlikely ever to contain any entry other than Bubbles (chimpanzee). In any event, it's a hopelessly anthropomorphic term; "suicide" implies the intentional taking of one's own life (we don't talk about moths committing suicide in the bugzapper), so we're pretty much down to chimps at most, right there. If anyone can find three other valid examples of articles that could populate this category, I'm willing to reconsider its validity – I'm not hopeful.  – iridescent 15:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Category:Suicides is for suicides, not attempts. (The suicidal moth would have to be notable to be in a category ... I might be wrong but I doubt if much has been written in reliable sources about individual moths. Fictional moths, perhaps.) Occuli (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have been batting with PasswordUsername over this. I think the category would have potential if any other notable animals who attempted suicide existed. a little insignificant 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; if kept "who" should be changed to "that" - animals are that's not who's. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if the claim were true, it still wouldn't be important enough for a category. That said, only one source even makes this claim, and does it in passing at the bottom of a gossip column. ninety:one 21:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 "of the Seimas". Kbdank71 17:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Members of the parliament of Lithuania to Category:Members of the Parliament of Lithuania or Category:Members of the Seimas

Propose renaming Category:Speakers of the parliament of Lithuania to Category:Speakers of the Parliament of Lithuania or Category:Speakers of the Seimas

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Given that our actual article on the body is at the proper name Seimas rather than the informal translation "Parliament of Lithuania", I think these categories should properly be Category:Members of the Seimas and Category:Speakers of the Seimas — but given that use of non-English terms in category names does give some Wikipedia users the dry heaves, I'm bringing this for discussion. At the very least, a rename for capitalization of the word Parliament is needed. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: precedents exist, e.g., category:Members of the Cortes Generales. - Altenmann >t 16:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 template that populated this already states it is deprecated and the proper template to use. And it's empty. Kbdank71 17:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Articles with sections needing rewrite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: ((sectionrewrite)) has been depreciated. If we can't save this category by using it in the other template it should be deleted. Complicated template markup is beyond me, so I don't know if this is possible or not. BirgitteSB 14:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or replace or do whatever is feasible to include under Category:Wikipedia articles needing rewrite.DGG (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been emptied at this point. Unless the other template is altered in order to refill this category, it will remain empty. The articles that were here have already been resorted under the more generic category "Category:Wikipedia articles needing rewrite". The question is do we want a separate "section" and if so can someone write the template code?--BirgitteSB 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The pedant in me prompts me to say that "needing rewrite" is lousy grammar. "Needing a rewrite" or (better yet) "needing to be rewritten" would be far better English. Grutness...wha? 02:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 17:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Polish Armenians to Category:Polish people of Armenian descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match others in Category:Polish people by ethnic or national origin, according to the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – has the nom forgotten his nom of 7 days ago, which is to delete the target of this one (Category:Poles of Armenian descent)? Occuli (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know everybody is busy, but please read more carefully. Very different categories, with significantly different names! This category seems to conform to policy about inclusion, other than the revised naming.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please expand upon the difference between Poles and Polish people. The article Poles begins "The Polish people, or Poles ..." Occuli (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The former has 5 characters, the latter has 13 characters. More importantly, it conforms to policy in both form and function, as noted in the nomination.
        --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems to verge on WP:POINT - see this diff. The nom is also incorrect: the majority in Category:Polish people by ethnic or national origin begin 'Poles of' (8 begin 'Poles of' and only 3 include 'people'). This discussion should be closed until the related cfd is closed. Occuli (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you noted, it's more than 7 days old, and the result is obvious to many of us. Stop Gaming the system!
        --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • UPDATE: I've closed the other discussion, and made it clear that the close there is without prejudice to this proposal. As closer there I'm entirely comfortable with this nomination now existing here, though it perhaps would have been ideal to wait until it was closed to avoid confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary racial/ethnic category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked hard at it more than a week ago, and there is significant Armenian history. This is one of the few that actually might be useful. At least it has a main article and is (lightly) populated.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There may be significant Armenian history in Poland, but that doesn't justify categorizing people on the mere basis of bloodlines. There have been significant contributions to Polish history by married people, widowed people, left handed people, etc., but we don't use those criteria to categorize upon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support categorizing based on bloodlines is a defining characteristic and new name clarifies content. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, but would support a comprehensive renaming of whole of Category:Armenians by country of citizenship. And I also think that 'Poles' is perfectly fine and therefore the longer 'Polish people' unnecessary Mayumashu (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 17:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Adventist to Category:Adventism

Nominator's rationale: Change to "-ism" ending. Adventism is a category of Christian denominations (of which the Seventh-day Adventist Church is best known) and hence this ending seems best. I suggested this 9 months ago and nobody responded – in particular there were no complaints. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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, empty. Kbdank71 17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Anacondas films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Another pointless category created by the same person who did the other recent film ones; for a series with 4 films, but unlikely to be expanded. Excessive categorization. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary small category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'll again encourage people to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Film_series. The categorization does follow a logical scheme (thus OC#SMALL may or may not apply) and isn't a contrived category, though I agree it is unlikely to be populated by many more articles. I think all film series should be found/represented in some way in the Category:Film series structure. Incidentally, nom originally deleted the category from the articles then tried to speedy delete the category as empty: bad form, I think. Шизомби (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems odd to me that a movie that's part of a film series would not be categorized as part of a film series. This would be more problematic for those film series that have categories but no article for the series overall. It's true also that these are not particularly large categories, though they may hold more than just the movies in the series and include articles about characters, locations, etc. It's true they may not grow, or grow by much more. WP:OC#SMALL does say small categories may be acceptable if they are "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." I do hope there will be more discussion about this at the Style Guide I linked above, perhaps I would change my mind. Шизомби (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Шизомби (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 17:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Rename Category:Video games by genre of fiction or setting to Category:Video games by theme or setting

Rename Category:Video game lists by genre of fiction or setting to Category:Lists of video games by theme or setting

As they're currently named, there's a clear overlap with Category:Video games by genre and Category:Video game lists by genre, respectively.

So the rename would not only help clarify the inclusion criteria, it would (hopefully) help reduce the overlap.

And changed the name to "Lists of..." per the convention of other such categories. (Another option commonly used is "Video game-related lists...".)

Alternate rename ideas welcome. - jc37 02:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator. - jc37 02:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - because reducing the overlap will help future categorization of video games by a certain theme or setting. GVnayR (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.