< May 3	May 5 >

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

The result of the debate was merge one article to Islamic mathematicians (where he really appears to belong). Syrthiss 15:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Most of the comments below also apply here. (This is a new category, with a grand total of one member, created perhaps for symmetry with the case below.) Hasdrubal 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Merge (revised). I hadn't known there was "Islamic mathematicians" already; we only need one category though I don't care which name. Harmless enough. Could use more than one member to be useful, certainly. As with the Jewish one, there's no reason to suppose the adjective qualifies a type of mathematics, just a biographical detail of the mathematician with an article. Likewise for all the national categories of mathematicians, of which there are a whole bunch. FWIW, if someone creates and populates them, I'll also vote "keep" for Shinto, or Buddhist, or Hindu mathematicians. LotLE×talk 03:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Islamic mathematicians and leave category redirect. Septentrionalis 23:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Hasdrubal. IZAK 05:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as encyclopedic as pagan mathematicians. Pavel Vozenilek 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per LotLE. There are plenty of names in Islamic mathematics to populate this list. Thinking about medieval mathematics hurts my head, but I'm willing to work on the category if nobody else does. --Wzhao553 07:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per LotLE. I'd normally say that religion and profession are not a categorically meaningful intersection, but the mathematics developed by Muslims in the middle ages has been studied as a historically discrete and significant phenomenon, so it is a meaningful relationship in this case. This is outside the purpose of this CFD (and I don't have any good suggestions right now), but Category:Islamic mathematicians should accordingly be renamed to limit it to only the practitioners relevant to the specific topic of Islamic mathematics, rather than simply including any mathematician from any time who happened to be Muslim. Postdlf 15:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being Muslim does not define a mathematician; if we have this we might as well have Category:Christian mathematicians, which I'm positive everyone would delete. No double standards. LaGrange 02:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is very encyclopedish to have a list of movie sequels 1028 02:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - an important characteristic of a film, and worth sorting by. TheGrappler 00:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sequels are a great part of the history of movies and films and of society. They examine follow ups that were done for reasons of either milking off the popularity of a previous entry or entries or to continue on in a saga or make a trilogy out of what was once going to be just a one and done type of deal. so many things can be studied from the trend of sequels and there are more then a few handfuls of them to sort through. It's a part of Hollywood and a part of society. The need to see our favorite characters again one more time. The made to video/DVD genre also is a great study on how big movies have been sequeled into cheaply made home viewing disks that you can get at any store quickly. Disney with it's sequeling almost every one of their major hits with mixed results and spectacular sales. There is no reason at all to remove this category and I'm shocked that someone would even nominate this one where there is a lot of value and importance that can come from it. And it's also quite nice for someone who comes onto the Wikipedia to see all the sequels listed in an easy list for people to sort through. I say keep, keep , 100 times keep. Its a great category and a great idea and a perfect fit for the Wikipedia. PantheraLeo 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I agree with PantheraLeo. Also note, the category is Category:Sequel films, not Category:Movie Sequels, and it already contains *HUNDREDS* of articles. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Absolutely useful. (Encyclopedish?)--Mike Selinker 17:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The category makes even less sense than other classifications of individual by descent; see comments in Category_talk:Jewish_mathematicians. (This is a recent category; the inevitable battle over criteria for inclusion has fortunately not yet happened.) Hasdrubal 21:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not crazy about the religion/ethnicity-by-occupation categories; but there seems to be a rough consensus that many such categories are worth keeping (individual cases sometimes have odd votes, but usually they're kept). The category is not purporting that there is such a thing as "Jewish mathematics"—of course there is no such thing. But there are mathematicians who happened to themselves be Jewish. This fact doesn't change the significance of mathematics they did, but it might be slightly interesting as a biographical fact about the person. LotLE×talk 02:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If their being seen as Jewish or Gentile was at all relevant to the way their lives were led, this fact can be mentioned in the text of the biographies; in fact, it often is. What we have here is an attempt to flag all mathematicians, including living ones, as being one or the other. We might as well have little symbols for "Jew" and "Gentile", and mark every biographical page with them. Hasdrubal 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wishy-washy comment. As a game designer who also happens to be Jewish, I think I'd cringe if someone put "Jewish game designer" on a bio of mine. For some impossible-to-isolate reason, I don't have any problem with "American game designer" but I don't feel comfortable with "Jewish game designer." So I imagine that a mathematician might feel the same way. Maybe. Hard to tell, really. I certainly support Sandy Koufax being listed as a Jewish baseball player, but for some reason that seems a lot more public than this mathematicians category suggests. Maybe it's because he chose to make his religion public, while nationality is by definition public.--Mike Selinker 17:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reckon you've just isolated the reason in your closing line, Mike; nationality is by definition public (i.e. readily discernable) whereas religion/ethnicity/etc need not (should not) necessarily be so. L'cha'im, David Kernow 15:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus a lot of the mathematicians in this category didn't even practice Judaism. Most mathematicians are atheists anyway. Nobody looks up a mathematician based on knowing what he does on Sundays. LaGrange 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Not parallel to Category:Muslim mathematicians above; not sure we need this. Septentrionalis 23:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

isn't the phrase "Jewish Mathmatician" redundant?1028 23:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - why is it that people are so determined to cover up the fact that some people are or were Jewish? As has been noted elsewhere, there is a category of British zoologists. Does anyone complain that we might as well have flags saying "british" or "foreigners"? - Newport 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These nationality-occupation categories are in general somewhat controversial. Still: a "British zoologist", for what that is worth, is simply a member of British academia, subdivision zoology; academic styles and practices tend to crowd geographically - or at least they tended to, before the era of fast communications. A "British zoologist" -- as the term is used in Wikipedia -- may or may not be British, so the parallel is faulty. Hasdrubal 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete random intersection of unrelated traits. Make an explanative, annotated list if you think there are individuals whose Jewishness actually impacted their careers as mathematicians, but as a classification it's rather odd and random. Postdlf 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Hasdrubal. IZAK 05:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the point that is being missed here is that Category:Jews would be much too large and uninteresting without subdivisions. Arniep 16:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the right place for the comment, I know. But Arnie's comment got me thinking about how it would be nice if the Wikimedia software itself did intersections. So rather than needing to be so fine-tuned about possibly contentious categorizations, we could just apply the broad ones, e.g. "Cat:Jews" and "Cat:Mathematicians". Then through some sort of interface, readers might arbitrarily find the intersection of Cat:Foo and Cat:Bar to find all the Fooish Bars (or Barish Foos). I mean, I don't care which French biologists are left-handed... and probably few enough people do that having an actual category page for Category:Left-handed French biologists would be foolish. But if someone just wanted to know that particular fact, why not let them extract it from the existing category system? LotLE×talk 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • That a large category may need subdividing is not an argument that this category is the way to do it, or that any old subdivision will do. If the relationship between the two traits that define the category is not categorically meaningful, it's not a meaningful category. Postdlf 17:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like muslim/pagan/left handed mathematicians, not a defining characteristics. Pavel Vozenilek 21:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually, there is an entire Category:Mathematicians by nationality for that matter. Besides, mathematicians like to obsessively categorize things anyway. There's no harm in categorizing mathematicians this way. --Wzhao553 07:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep this category but delete Muslim mathematicians because Mathematicians like to categorize stuff? I don't get it. Nationality is readily available information for categorization; religion isn't - especially since most mathematicians aren't even religious. LaGrange 03:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like stated above with the Muslim mathematicians entry, being Jewish does not define a mathematician; if we have this we might as well have Category:Christian mathematicians, which I'm positive everyone would delete. No double standands. LaGrange 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It doesn't seem to have been mentioned there that "Jewishness" is not necessarily just a religious affiliation but an ethnic one as well. Many non-practicing Jews are "Jewish" by descent (and self-appelation). siafu 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep at the exisiting name Tim! 14:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC) (moved from Speedy) No vote — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Hindu goddesses to Category:Devi - It's the most accurate and correct term for Hindu goddesses. --Dangerous-Boy 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO, not common usage, also not all so called Hindu godeseeses will be accetable as Devi. This is Sanskritisation:-)) RaveenS 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Hindu gods to Category:Deva - It's the most accurate and correct term for Hindu gods. --Dangerous-Boy 18:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO, not common usage also not all so called Hindu gods will be accetable as Deva. This is Sanskritisation:-)) RaveenS 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is, i.e. do not rename. The proposed names may be more accurate and correct, but we also need to keep in mind whether or not they are more obvious. Not everyone knows Hindu discourse. The current names are obvious and unambiguous. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Aecis. The current term is not inaccurate, and is more common. siafu 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Use English; and is Brahman a deva, strictly speaking? Septentrionalis 23:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As is. I don't think merging this with some other category will do justice to it. Anand Arvind 10:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move content to existing category Category:Hindu deities. The two categories are entirely redundant. RandomCritic 17:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; nothing is gained by using terms that are obscure to most english speakers when these descriptives are plain and obvious. I also don't think merging into a non-gender specific deities category is called for. We have a complete Category:Deities by gender structure for every culture's mythology. In contrast to what I would consider inappropriate for categorizing real people, the gender of a deity is integral to its character and identity because these are archetypes. Postdlf 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relist for more opinions Tim! 15:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the categories Category:Vermeer and Category:Vermeer paintings are more unambiguous when the first name of this famous painter is added to the category name, leading to Category:Johannes Vermeer and Category:Johannes Vermeer paintings. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 19:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming. Johannes Vermeer is the only Vermeer on Wikipedia so I don't see how there could be any ambiguity as to whom is being referred to in the category title. In Category:Paintings by artist at the moment there are 19 subcategories of which 7 have the artist's given name, and it just looks messy – I'd prefer Category:Picasso paintings to Category:Pablo Picasso paintings, personally. HAM 21:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second thoughts: Create Category:Johannes Vermeer, which is more helpful than Category:Vermeer. Where paintings by the artist are concerned, like siafu I prefer the form Category:Paintings by Vermeer, for the sake of concision and grammatical sense. (I would prefer a short form of the artist's name so that we avoid lengthy category titles like, say, Category:Paintings by Antonio Allegri da Correggio.) HAM 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The man's name was "Johannes Vermeer", and other personal categories are named with a full name (e.g. Category:Julius Caesar, Category:Joseph Stalin). Category:Vermeer could potentially be confused with Vermeer Quartet or even Vermeer Technologies Incorporated. As for the paintings category, my actual preference would be "Paintings by X", but a more general rule seems to be in order. siafu 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 09:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Some of the discussion about Category:Categories by person may be relevant here, as well as the naming convention that seems to have been adopted there. That category would be the root for any categories whose names include that of a person. Subcategories would probably drop the first name, unless there was potential for confusion. Carcharoth 11:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I will say that for some people, it's a lot easier to remember the last (or first) name of a person than the full name. So there's no category:Madonna Ciccone, for example. I might have trouble remembering that Vermeer's first name was Johannes, but I won't have any trouble remembering his last name is Vermeer.--Mike Selinker 17:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall having read somewhere in the Wikipedia: namespace that category names should follow the corresponding article. Can't remember exactly where, I'll look into it. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 17:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming I think Aecis is right, but the guideline is intended for cases like El Greco; not cases of mere abbreviation. Cats should be short. Septentrionalis 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category names should also follow article names. siafu 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No strong views either way, but the category for each artist should use the same form. ReeseM 03:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains one page (which is also nominated for AfD), and the whole category smells like SPAM. P199 18:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 01:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 03:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 15:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this category looks like it was only created to promote the company. If the article is/was deleted then the category is useless. Wikipedia is not a September 11 memorial site anyway. JIP | Talk 11:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is no decided naming convention for Landmarks by country categories at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Wordings used in practice on Wikipedia include "in country", "of country", and "Foo landmarks". However, in categories like Category:Landmarks of the Philippines or Category:Landmarks of the United States, most sub-categories use the "in" wording, like Category:World Heritage Sites in the Philippines or Category:Skyscrapers in the United States.

Additionally, a naming convention has been established in practice for Visitor attractions by country categories (the naming convention used is "in country"). I believe that given the similar meanings of both subjects they should use the same naming convention. Based on the above points and in the interests of standardization, the following renamings are proposed:

• Category:Landmarks of Australia to Category:Landmarks in Australia
• Category:Landmarks of Germany to Category:Landmarks in Germany
• Category:Hong Kong landmarks to Category:Landmarks in Hong Kong
• Category:Landmarks of India to Category:Landmarks in India
• Category:Landmarks of Mexico to Category:Landmarks in Mexico
• Category:Landmarks of the Philippines to Category:Landmarks in the Philippines
• Category:Landmarks of Poland to Category:Landmarks in Poland
• Category:Landmarks of Singapore to Category:Landmarks in Singapore
• Category:Landmarks of the United States to Category:Landmarks in the United States

--Kurieeto 16:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 17:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 01:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename But we should go further. Category:Landmarks in Australia has two subcategories with the convention "Foo landmarks". Brian Jason Drake 03:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll be addressing those in a subsequent cfru - For this proposal I didn't want to dilute the objective of establishing a naming convention at the country level by including sub-national entities. Kurieeto 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 09:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Ian3055 15:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Ansell 07:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by one of a more appropriate name, so no longer required De Facto 16:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. siafu 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 22:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject Azeri (empty, blanked by creator). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 03:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, also in wrong namespace. mattbr³⁰ 09:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is inadequate but it can be expanded.--Hattusili 08:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not inadequate, it's been superseded by a new category. siafu 12:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge -- since when are there "Category:Wikipedia:Wikiproject" categories? Doesn't match anything else in super-Category:Regional WikiProjects. --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Weekly Reader (empty). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete both, one is empty, the other contains only 1 article Cpt. Morgan 16:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Cpt. Morgan, though technically there are two articles that fit. siafu 03:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Cpt Morgan. mattbr³⁰ 09:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Sue Anne 20:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as incorrectly formatted. David Kernow 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Pedology (empty, blanked by creator). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Cpt. Morgan 16:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 03:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 09:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. David Kernow 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Marine geology (empty). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Cpt. Morgan 16:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 03:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 09:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. David Kernow 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:French people by ethnic or national origin (empty, blanked by creator). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Cpt. Morgan 16:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. This is a racist category which attempts to divise the French people according to ethnic or national origins. Refer to the French people entry and the relevant talk page why this shouldn't be done (actually, it shouldn't be done for any other nation - please do not confuse a nation-state with an ethnic group, unless you are advocating ethnic cleansing). Lapaz 02:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Pointless. Hasdrubal 02:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 09:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Football clubs in the Republic of Macedonia (empty, blanked by creator, typo). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Cpt. Morgan 16:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 03:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 09:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. David Kernow 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Cities and towns of Sicily. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Cpt. Morgan 16:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 03:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 09:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. David Kernow 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, blanked by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Cpt. Morgan 17:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quack. siafu 03:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 09:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Canadian legal professionals (empty, blanked by creator). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Cpt. Morgan 17:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 03:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 09:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:World War II weapons of Greece (empty, caps, blanked by creator). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Cpt. Morgan 17:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, capitalization. siafu 03:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete for caps. mattbr³⁰ 09:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. David Kernow 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (text merged in on Korean Baseball Organization). Syrthiss 22:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Baseball in South Korea (empty). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, but merge text with Korean Baseball Organization Cpt. Morgan 17:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 03:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Cpt. Morgan. mattbr³⁰ 09:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge text then delete per Cpt. Morgan. David Kernow 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Syrthiss 22:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another list for you all, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Man-made objects which states parks should be in country.

• Category:Parks and commons of Berkshire to Category:Parks and commons in Berkshire
• Category:Cheshire parks and commons to Category:Parks and commons in Cheshire
• Category:Lancashire parks and commons to Category:Parks and commons in Lancashire
• Category:Liverpool parks and commons to Category:Parks and commons in Liverpool
• Category:Merseyside parks and commons to Category:Parks and commons in Merseyside
• Category:Tyne and Wear parks and commons to Category:Parks and commons in Tyne and Wear
• Category:Wirral parks and commons to Category:Parks and commons in the Wirral
• Category:Urban public parks and gardens of Hong Kong to Category:Urban public parks and gardens in Hong Kong
• Category:Tehran parks to Category:Parks in Tehran
• Category:Landscape parks of Poland to Category:Landscape parks in Poland
• Category:Glasgow parks and commons to Category:Parks and commons in Glasgow
• Category:Parks and squares of Philadelphia to Category:Parks and squares in Philadelphia

• Rename all as nominator. mattbr³⁰ 13:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 03:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Choalbaton 23:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Ian3055 15:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 15:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. ᎠᏢ462090^Contribs 11:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted (see May 3) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked by creator, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Ectopistes. Delete. mattbr³⁰ 12:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I had an uncle who had conuropsis once. He was in the hospital for a couple weeks to treat it... oh, wait, it's an extinct bird genera. Delete as requested. --Elkman - ^(talk) 13:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coo. siafu 03:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 22:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Follows other "People executed for" subcategories of Category:Executed people; (b) Implicitly allows possibility that some of those listed may not have been murderers.

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 11:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as requested. --Elkman - ^(talk) 13:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 01:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 03:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 10:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delkaira. Syrthiss 22:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusedly created and found it useless. Brand 10:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice to recreation if there are ever articles about the individual species. Sumahoy 01:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 03:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Tim! 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two categories created by User:Howiej1:

• Category:Island Group Company, Inc.
• Category:Bahamas Democratic Movement

Contain no articles, and are just duplicates of the Island Group Company and Bahamas Democratic Movement articles - looks like a misunderstanding of what categories are for. — sjorford (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy Delete both as a test. Vegaswikian 19:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE! :Category:Bahamas Democratic Movement is also listed on April 30. Vegaswikian 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete both. siafu 03:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. David Kernow 15:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 22:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced Category:art with Category:The arts as a member, but I don't think either should be there as they are both subdivisions of culture, which is another member of the Top 10. The same applies to category:Philosophy, and I can't see why philosophy should be placed higher in the category system than religion, economics, literature or music. The change would move the contents closer to the subject list at the top of the main page. It would be the same except that "people" would stand in the place of "biography" and "culture" would stand in the place of "The arts". And I am going to propose that Culture should replace "arts" on the main page. CalJW 02:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename and remove category:Philosophy and category:The arts. CalJW 02:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for rename to "Top 8" and removal of philosophy and art, both of which are under "culture". Of course, "history" and "technology" can also be considered aspects of "culture", but only under certain circumstances (a specific culture's history and technology), whereas art and philosophy are universally cultural (with the possible exception of "logic", "politics", etc. under the broader definition of "philosophy", and perhaps "art" (not "The Arts") under the broader definition that includes skills and trades like the martial arts, cooking arts, etc.). But this is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia's categories, organization, treatment of these topics, etc., and will be convenient for readers. -Silence 02:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Per below comments, renaming to Category:Top-level categories or similar is much more informative and useful, and eliminates the problem of having to remember how many entries are at the top. -Silence 15:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be misleading. This is only one of the top-level categorisation schemes in category:Categories. CalJW 23:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Then "Top 8" it is. No question. -Silence 05:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While this is in line with my thinking as well, this can't be the right place for this discussion. This is a major change to the architecture.--Mike Selinker 04:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no obvious other place this could be discussed. Why not just discuss it here, and provide links everywhere else people could be interested, like the Village Pump? -Silence 04:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What does it matter whether there are 8 or 10 or any other number of categories? Why not have a name that explains why these categories have been grouped together? Brian Jason Drake 06:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There has been a previous rename request (rename to Category bar). More discussion is at Category talk:Top 10#Purpose of this category. Brian Jason Drake 06:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I too think there are better places to discuss the reorganization. As for the name of the root category, I agree with Brian and would prefer a more informative title — and preferably one that doesn't have change when it gains or loses a child. Category:Top categories was suggested in both of the conversations Brian linked to. I'd prefer that, or better yet, Category:Top-level categories, to Top 8 / 10. ×Meegs 10:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename/removals This isn't actually the root category (that is category:Categories), but just one of several high level category organisation schemes. Hawkestone 17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. In my view Category:The arts should be top level as it describes a coherent class of human activity. Category:Culture would be more satisfactory, separated from the Arts, and based on an anthropological/Social science definition. (Philosophy would fit in there.) - Kleinzach 22:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further point. While I don't like the concept of Top 10 or Top 8 or another other number, I would nevertheless argue that there are three fundamental categories (as traditionally recognized by universities, libraries etc.) of the Arts, the Humanities and the Sciences. - Kleinzach 13:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose see below, don't quite understand the reasoning, one might argue that another solution is to remove Category:The arts from Category:Culture. I note Wikipedia:Browse refers to The arts and culture, and arts, despite the nom's thoughts on the matter, is linked to at the top of the main page. This nom seems to be attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I'd also like to point out that our categorisation system isn't a tree; categories do not form a strict hierarchy. There's no reason why technology and science shouldn't be categorised in each other, for example.Hiding Talk 23:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what conceivable basis might one argue that? It makes no more sense than removing Category:Winter sports from category:Sports. Bhoeble 01:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no objection to removing all similarly sub-categorised categories in this category, for example Category:Science? Hiding Talk 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This user has voted twice. Presumably the delete vote below is intended to replace this one. CalJW 23:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response It's not a vote, it's a discussion, the closing admin should read the discussion, not count the votes. Hiding Talk 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "Culture" is used as it is used. Asking for it to be used in a totally different way doesn't get us anywhere. Bhoeble 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly clarify the sentence Culture is used as it is used? Are you suggesting that categories do not need any implicit or explicit definitions? I think that concentrating on the core (anthropological) meaning of culture - from which the arts are separated - will make the structure of Wikipedia more coherent. - Kleinzach 09:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would make it more coherent from the perspective of professional anthropologists and people with degrees in anthropology. Would you care to estimate what fraction of the world population that would be? I think it is extremely presumptious for small groups of specialists to decree that there specialised use of a term is its "core" meaning and the normal English usage of the word should be brushed aside. You are proposing a massive change on another issue that just isn't going to happen, so it is not a good reason for objecting to the proposal being discussed here. Bhoeble 16:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not recommending a 'massive change'. On the contrary, I am opposing change. I would like to see the Arts remain where they are and not absorbed into Culture. Nor am I presuming to make any definitions. I am looking at what is included under Culture at present. What is the 'normal English usage' of the word culture where you live? Where I am the anthropological meaning (or rather a popular version of it) is the norm. Culture meaning the intellectual milieu/the arts is referred to as 'high culture' - but as noted before this is not primarily what is contained in this category. - Kleinzach 23:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency. Ten may have been chosen simply because it is a round number. Sumahoy 01:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Makes sense. Chicheley 17:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This category only has six subcategories now: Mathematics, People, Philosophy, Science, Society, Technology. Currently, Category:Top 8 contains The arts, Culture, Geography, History. Category:Top 8 also has a talk page. Brian Jason Drake 02:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal[edit]

• oppose and instead recommend delete Shouldn't we also go ahead and remove Category:Mathematics since it is already in Category:Science, with the similar rationale going for Category:Geography, Category:History, Category:People and Category:Culture, given they are in Category:Society, and since Category:Science is ultimately categorised in Category:Society too, so we can remove that, and Category:Society is ultimately a sub-cat of Category:Technology and can be removed too! All by the rationale already contended per nominator and all support votes, and thus merge with Category:Technology? People, please, consider what you are doing and saying here! Read this debate again; it's started from a false premise, that the two categories nominated are the only ones which are sub-cats of another. Any rename to Category:Top-level categories is, I hope, proved somewhat inane by the fact that there is only, to my eye, one top level category, Category:Technology, and also, Wikipedia:Categorisation points to Category:Categories as the top level category. Can we remember that categories do not form a strict hierarchy, per Wikipedia:Categorisation? Why do we need to remove these two categories and rename? What problem is being fixed here? This category, based on the discussion above, is entrenching points of view on Wikipedia, something against policy. I propose, simply, that we delete it, as a point of view fork in the categorisation structure. It's only been here since January and isn't entrenched within Wikipedia, nor is it's purpose clearly explained. It's described as categorising the 10 top level categories designed to make browsing Wikipedia easy. This totally contradicts Wikipedia:Categorisation guidance, which states Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. If someone here can point out any basis for determining the 10 top level categories designed to make browsing Wikipedia easy without introducing a point of view, fair play. Otherwise, come on, it has to be deleted. Hiding Talk 20:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there is overlap, but the category system is a navigational tool and we should make sensible decisions on practical grounds, not strike absolutist poses. CalJW 23:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, how does this category aid naviagation? having only existed since 2006, was navigation impossible prior to then? Or is it here to push a point of view as to what people believe should be read? Because that is the danger in this category, that user's advance their point of view as to what is important. Hiding Talk 19:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way. This user has voted twice. CalJW 23:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a discussion, not a vote. A closing admin should read the discussion, not count the votes. Hiding Talk 04:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Voting is an element of the process and it is dissembling to pretend otherwise. Failing to cross out a prior comment when making a new one and different one with a different choice bolded is very bad form as the closing admin may not always notice that two very different contributions were made by the same person. CalJW 10:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then, if you hadn't already, someone would point that out to the closing admin, and the closing admin should take more care when closing. But I will merge the two votes. Hiding Talk 19:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This category aids navigation in the same way as the portal links on the main page. Some people may prefer categories to portals. Brian Jason Drake 09:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So should it not be left to a strong consensus as to what goes in it, and not a renaming debate on cfd? Hiding Talk 17:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not this violates policy by entrenching a point of view, we always pick out a certain set of pages (categories/portals/articles/...) as a starting point, at least on the main page, because that's what people expect. This may not be the best thing but this is not the place to discuss it. Brian Jason Drake 09:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. But this starts from a flawed position, in that it attempts to set a standard and then lead that over to the main page. We should flow from the main page, which is where the striongest consensus on these matters will lie. Since The arts is linked there, I don't think this is the place to discuss it, and I don't think this is the place to decide what goes in what category. Had I not been heavily involved in this discussion, I would be of a mind to close it as inappropriate, since it is an attempt to limit the contents of a particular category. The category name is inherently flawed in the context of category guidelines, and should be deleted. Hiding Talk 17:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it makes sense to have everything categorized under technology. More specifically, I don't think systems belongs there. Brian Jason Drake 09:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and adjust as per nom. Choalbaton 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hiding (although I disagree with some of his judgements). This 'new' category is redundant and POV. If the adjudicating admin doesn't wish to consider 'delete' votes, then I default to Oppose. Anyone considering registering an opinion should do a bit of research first, and I suggest that Wikipedia:Category and Wikipedia:Browse are good places to start. Noisy | Talk 14:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hiding and Noisy. I agree that both Top 10 and Top 8 are unnecessary. Like Noisy I default to Oppose if delete votes are not counted. - Kleinzach 21:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support To better match the main page, which was debated at length. ReeseM 03:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose constant messing with the structure is just rearranging deckchairs. We should concentrate on content. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As categories do not form a strict hierarchy and as the category Technology is allowed to exist independent of Science, so should Art and Philosophy be allowed to exist independent of Culture. Delete if necessary, per Hiding. HAM 16:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Delete. Per Hiding. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Tim! 15:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. CalJW 02:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge CalJW 02:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. Postdlf 02:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no duplicate content, and given the other members of Category:Art museums and galleries, like Category:Modern art museums, this seems like a natural subcat, though it should be renamed to Category:Art galleries. siafu 03:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It is the same thing. There is no point in trying to come up with two different definitions for these categories. Bhoeble 16:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Choalbaton 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, although commercial galleries like the Elaine Benson Gallery have no place in Category:Art museums and galleries, so perhaps there is a need for a Category:Commercial art galleries. HAM 18:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the difference between a commercial art gallery and a noncommercial art gallery/museum? Simply that one is run for profit and the other isn't? I don't know that there is a point to making that a categorical distinction. Postdlf 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Tim! 08:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the item below, we have this too! It is largley a duplicate of category:Art, so adding it to that won't actually change the contents of that category much. CalJW 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge CalJW 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge per CalJW. Postdlf 02:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Oppose. "Visual arts" is as much a valid and consistent categorization as "performing arts", "plastic arts", etc. If the two are largely redundant, if anything "art" should be the one that's gotten rid of, as it's the vaguer one. It would probably make the most sense organizationally to simply move all the redundant stuff out of the "art" section and simply have it under "visual arts", though, and to do exactly the same with the other subcategories of "art". -Silence 02:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It is not a good idea to have both and merging this is easier than renaming all the "art" categories. Hawkestone 17:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per Silence and current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts. Category:Visual arts is a better name since it is better defined and thus allows better classification, the purpose of categorisation. It would also remove any confusion between whichever name is chosen out of Category:Arts and Category:The arts. Hiding Talk 22:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. If anyone is interested in making a switch to "visual art" (which has some merit) please do a block nomination of all the relevant categories. Bhoeble 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Silence and Hiding. There are other types of art besides visual arts. siafu 03:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which have other categories. We have national art categories for visual arts. All this proposal would do it make the parent category consistent. Bhoeble 16:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see how this will provide consistency. All it appears that it will do is clutter up a category that already has some 62 articles and 27 subcats with an additional 20 articles and 13 subcats (these numbers are of non-duplicates). There is certainly a major cleanup/reorganization required, but merging this category will only make things worse. siafu 23:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge "Art" usually means visual art.Chicheley 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense. Read art. The word "art" has countless commonplace definitions; there's no point whatsoever in mutilating the word to refer only to visual art in all cases, when we already have two perfectly good, 100% clear categories to satisfy the need for a visual art category ("Visual arts") and for a general category on all the arts ("The arts"). As such, Category:Art serves no real purpose and would probably be best deleted; but whether it is or not, deleting "visual arts" is a ridiculously unhelpful, counterproductive idea that would only serve to obfuscate, not clarify, the category system. -Silence 05:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do a google search for art to see what the predominant usage is. Chicheley 10:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If only it were that simple. There are certain contemporary artists who work with sound – regardless of whether or not that's your idea of art, it nonetheless has to be categorised as art, defnitely not visual art. Also, outside of the Western artistic tradition the term "art" becomes much more slippery – a tea ceremony is considered Art by the Japanese, and that doesn't fall neatly into the "Visual art" pigeonhole. I vote to oppose the merge. HAM 16:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Choalbaton 23:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong reverse merge as per Silence and Hiding Ian3055 15:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/reverse merge. To me, Category:Arts would be a parent of Category:Visual arts. Another sibling would be Category:Sonic arts. Regards, David Kernow 15:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong reverse merge as per Silence, Hiding and Ian3055 - Kleinzach 21:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. >>sparkit|TALK<< 03:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where is that block nomination of the national art categories? At the moment the reverse mergers are just proposing to create inconsistency. Bhoeble 15:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder if you could explain the statement "the reverse mergers are just proposing to create inconsistency"? Speaking for myself, I regard the Visual Arts as a clearly defined, NPOV way of describing painting, drawing sculpture etc. Art on the other hand is redolent of ambiguity. It can be confused with both Arts in general and Visual Arts in particular. - Kleinzach 16:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You might also appreciate that we are attempting to tackle categorisation of the arts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts. We too are aiming for consistency, and perhaps that block vote you are hoping for is here, just not in the form you desire. Hiding Talk 17:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely oppose. "Art" and "visual art" are not synonyms, unless you discount music, poetry, and non-silent films and plays as works of art. Category:Visual arts should be a subcategory of Category:Art; everything in the latter that only refers to the former should be moved into the more specific category, and vice versa. Reverse merge. -Sean Curtin 20:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would lead to massive confusion as art absolutely does primarily mean visual art in common usage. If you don't see this it may be that you are living in an ivory tower. The alternative proposal would be an absolute disaster for usability. Bhoeble 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music, poetry, and plays are examples of the arts; "art" in the singular does not refer to those media. Postdlf 15:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simply repeating an unsourced claim does not lend it more credence. Clearly, there are many here who disagree. siafu 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you expect to find exhibits on poetry at an art museum? Or to read about composers in an art history textbook? Did you get confused in elementary school when you had art class and only painted and drew, and then had a separate class for music? Postdlf 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you are utterly confused when musicians are referred to as artists? siafu 05:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - Reverse Merge Keep Visual arts as per Silence and Hiding. Art will continue to be a vague category that will get all sorts of things throw into it. BTW I am so glad this conversation is taking place. A very long time ago I gave up on this since no one was commenting on categorization.Clubmarx | Talk 02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Tim! 08:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to think of a way to resolve the chronic degree of confusion in the category system between "art" and "the arts" (many people, especially non-native speakers just don't get the distinction at all). Having yet another variant certainly doesn't help. CalJW 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete CalJW 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An article on this concept is a good idea. A category is not: what is and isn't "fine" is too subjective, and redundant to "the arts" and "art". -Silence 03:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Silence. Hiding Talk 22:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the term still has its uses, it's not useful as a category at all. HAM 22:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 03:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Silence. Ian3055 15:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. David Kernow 15:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suspend vote until WikiProject Arts formulates a proposal. >>sparkit|TALK<< 23:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Silence. Clubmarx | Talk 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Silence. Postdlf 02:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relist for more opinions Tim! 08:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- One is a duplicate of the other. See also similar discussion on merging Category:Science fiction novels by milieu to Category:Science fiction series. MakeRocketGoNow 00:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - however I don't agree that one is a dup of the other. Milieu speaks of the setting of the narrative, i.e. "where" it takes place. So it is really a 'in context' a way of saying 'by world'. However the subtleties of this are lost on most. So, merge. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A series of books is a group of books that someone publishes and calls a series. Also one could pick a location and find all the books set in that location. How is the difference "subtle"? On the English Wikipedia it is hard to understand because:
  • Most people don't know what milieu means.
  • Category:Fantasy series has subcategories that are not series (e.g. Middle-earth books).
  • Some series don't appear to have categories (e.g. Category:Harry Potter books includes the two charity books, which aren't part of the series).

However I think we can fix these other problems and leave Category:Fantasy books by milieu and Category:Fantasy series separate. Brian Jason Drake 08:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename without using "milieu" to Category:Fantasy series by world or Category:Fantasy books and series by world. David Kernow 15:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename both. Rename the former to Category:Fantasy books by fictional universe. Rename the latter to Category:Series of fantasy books, and subcategorize under the former where applicable. Not all books set in a series' fictional world are entries in that series (for example, The Science of Discworld, or the various Star Trek and Star Wars technical and reference books). "Fantasy series" also covers series in other media, such as film and television, so Category:Fantasy series should be either deleted or kept as a parent for fantasy series in all media. -Sean Curtin 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge, keeping old category as a redirect Tim! 08:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how two different categories got created, but since the Minneapolis-St. Paul category has many more entries than Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, I'm inclined to merge the smaller category into the larger one. Elkman - ^(talk) 02:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, but keep Category:Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota as a redirect. Sumahoy 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - EurekaLott 02:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per article title (Minneapolis-St. Paul). siafu 03:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Sue Anne 20:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Ian3055 15:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did the merge, since there was no objection. If someone could delete Category:Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, then everything would be complete. --Elkman - ^(talk) 03:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that there was also no objection to keeping Category:Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota as a redirect. Brian Jason Drake 07:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly named - presumably it was meant for scientists who are/happen to be Muslim (for which there exists Category:Muslim scientists). as i found the page empty the nomination here is to delete Mayumashu 01:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you make of here...?  Regards, David Kernow 21:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I do not see any reason for a category for Category:Muslim scientists, but separate categories for historical figures that happen to fit in the framework of "Islamic mathematics" or "Islamic geography" might make sense. Of course, a link to "Islamic mathematics" or "Islamic geography" would be better than the current category. (In principle, you do not have to be a Muslim to fit within the history of Islamic geography.) Hasdrubal 05:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Hasdrubal. IZAK 05:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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