< October 11	October 13 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candlewick Press (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Transferred from PROD as PROD does not and should not handle categories — 132.205.44.134 00:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet WP:CORP – 18:48, 10 October 2006 user:141.157.207.101

• Comment that would be an issue with the article. If the article exists, then the Category would be fine. Did you mean to nominate Candlewick Press on AfD? Vegaswikian 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think this should be withdrawn until an AfD determines the outcome of the article. After looking at the main article, I added one more article to the category. That said, perhaps we should consider renaming, since this really seems like an attempt to categorise a series of books. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Regardless of the article, delete as it's not worthwhile to categorize books by publisher. >Radiant< 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Radiant!, not because of WP:CORP. Books shouldn't be categorized under publishers; various imprints and subdivisions and former subdivisions as in Category:Random House make a category useful for some publishers, but not for this one. If this one had a reason for existence, then no renamig would be necessary, so I don't know what jc37 had in mind. Gene Nygaard 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This cat only holds a single series of books, and the publisher of them. I don't know what the name of the book series is, so I can't suggest a rename. (The Lord of the Rings is a book series, The Fellowship of the Ring is an individual book in that series.) Does this clarify? - jc37 00:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per >Radiant< with the condition that all of the other categories in Category:Book publishing companies of the United States like Category:Simon & Schuster be nominated for the same reason. Vegaswikian 18:21, 18 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:City and town halls. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inroduction to this category says it covers town halls, it includes the articles town hall and hotel de ville and at least 2 articles about individual town halls. As a few English towns have populations over 200,000 there may be more articles about individual town halls from England, and very likely from other countries. Looking at this from an architectural perspective there is little reason to have separate categories for city halls and town halls as they are both the same sort of building and the size a settlement needs to reach varies greatly from one country to another (eg almost every English town would be a city in America, whereas many American cities would be villages or even hamlets in England). Olborne 22:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if renamed, would Category:City and town halls be better? Vegaswikian 23:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:City and town halls, per Vegaswikian. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to City and town halls per Vegaswikian. David Kernow (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. It's really fine as is, "city" is an ambiguous word with several meanings even in England, and Americans are often indiscriminate in their usage (i.e., they mean the same thing here, though if one is carved in stone in the front of the building that's the one more likely to be used), but it is cheap enough to avoid quibbling. I don't care if you repeat "halls" or not, can't think of any reason why they'd be interpreted differently. Gene Nygaard 18:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added Category:Town halls in the Czech Republic as a subcat, do that and the existing "city hall" subcategories need to be explicitly dealt with here, notices on talk pages or anything? Gene Nygaard 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess these need nomination too, if there's no substantive distinction in these other countries... I'm a little preoccupied with country subdivision categories at present, so would you (or someone else) mind sorting this out...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Have also suggested at Town Hall that it is ((merge))d with City hall – to City and town halls (plural) as presumably in singular form one excludes the other...?  David (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that's a good idea. "A town hall discussion" and "You can't fight city hall", would seem to me that they may have different connotative meanings. - jc37 00:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but these idiomatic connotations are mentioned and so would feature in the merged article; hopefully that would be sufficient...?  Regards, David (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The current name is perfectly clear and appropriately simple. The proposed name doesn't account for other types of municipalities, and I don't want to see a name like Category:City, town, village, hamlet, and township halls. - EurekaLott 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only generic term I can think of would be something like Category:Municipal government headquarters buildings. Not a well named cat in my mind. Is there a better generic name? Vegaswikian 22:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that city halls is sufficiently generic. A simple category description should be able to alleviate concerns about what the category covers. Likewise, the above articles tagged for merger can be folded into the existing city hall article. - EurekaLott 23:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It most certainly isn't in British English, where town hall is much the more familiar term. Hence Manchester, which is England's second or third city has Manchester Town Hall. Calsicol 11:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC). Calsicol 11:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to City and town halls per Vegaswikian. Calsicol 11:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Vegaswikian. -Sean Curtin 00:16, 16 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename to category:Discontinued media formats. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Failed media formats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Far too subjective to be useful as a category, underlined by the horribly weasily definition. Dtcdthingy 20:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Defunct media formats. I have de-POVed/de-weaseled the definition to "A category of media formats that have been superseded by newer technologies and/or are no longer supported by their creators." I've also removed MiniDisc and Universal Media Disc, both of which are still very much alive. See also Dead Media Project. --Aaron 03:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've located a few other articles that would qualify for Category:Defunct media formats (such as Vocoder, Telegraph, Iridium (satellite), etc), but I'm hesitant to add them as long as the category reads "failed", as many of them were quite successful in their day; they're just not in use now. --Aaron 04:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment how about discontinued? - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Don't we tend to use Defunct? Category:Defunct hotels Category:Defunct airlines. Vegaswikian 06:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Those examples are "defunct" companies. (See: wikt:defunct.) Something that is "produced" or is a facet of "production" (such as a product, a product type, product format, etc.), is "discontinued". - jc37 07:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the Telegraph is not defunct. The US DOD is still using Iridium. 132.205.45.229 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yeah, after I posted those possibilities, I realized some of them aren't totally defunct. There's still other formats out there though. (Who's still using the telegraph?) --Aaron 01:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to category:Discontinued media formats. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Discontinued media formats per jc37 (otherwise Defunct media formats). David Kernow (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "deprecated"? Support rename either way. >Radiant< 14:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if "deprecated" as easily-understood as "discontinued" (or "defunct")... another possibility though. Thanks, David (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Discontinued media formats. -Sean Curtin 00:16, 16 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and subs Category:Schools in Palestine, Category:Universities in Palestine. Rename to Category:Palestinian Education per other categories of Category:Palestine or Delete. Amoruso 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The existing names are in the standard format. Choalbaton 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existing names for COUNTRIES are in the standard format. That's the problem... Amoruso 21:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support xyz of Palestine is nonneutral, as there is no entity of that name at the moment. The best solution is the suggested Palestinian xyz, as aside from already being in use by the majority of the relevant categories, it accurately describes reality, as opposed to what may be in the future. Tewfik^Talk 03:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tewfik. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Use "the Palestinian territories" in place of "Palestine"...?   Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tewfik. Isarig 05:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Education in" is standard across the board (see category:Education by city and Category:Education in the United Kingdom by locality. Also, the proposal breaches the capitalisation policy. Hawkestone 18:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're saying you want to Rename it to Education IN something else, but a rename is a must because it's not education by country... Amoruso 05:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The country (no offense) never existed and to this day has no defined borders. Either delete or go for Amoruso's suggestion. --Shamir1 20:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The proposed name is a clear breach of conventions as it would refer to the education of Palestinians anywhere in the world. It also breaches capitalization policy. Calsicol 11:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tewfik. Theoretically it could refer to education of Palestinians anywhere in the world. However including an article of Palestinian education situated outside of the PA would not necessarily negate the category:Palestine, because a number of articles in the Subcategories do not refer solely to things located only in the PA. E.g. Palestine Children's Relief Fund, listed under Palestinain charites, is based in the USA. Chesdovi 12:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Education in the Palestinian territories would seem to address the various points above...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:36, 21 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in the West Bank and Gaza and accordingly. This is again highly confusing , because it doesn't contain structures in Israel and possibly in Jordan etc. This is one of a few examples of this very problematic category Category:Palestine which just keeps popping with the controversial term "Palestine" to refer to a COUNTRY. This should be done on all categories of Palestine that wrongly refer to a country - there are 3 or 4 so. Amoruso 19:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Looks like a POV nomination. Certainly changing one here and there won't do. Choalbaton 21:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a POV nomination, it's a POV category. There aren't too many , there are only 3 or so more. Amoruso 21:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my comments above, Tewfik^Talk 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tewfik. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tewfik. Isarig 05:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Shamir1 20:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is too complicated to define where or what Palestine actually is. There are too many different views. The commonly recognised term of the West Bank and Gaza are more accurate and correct. Chesdovi 13:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using "...in the Palestinian territories" per suggestions in proposal above. David Kernow (talk) 00:37, 21 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Military of Palestine and sub-section Category:Weapons of Palestine per POV and confusion. Palestine is not a country and it's listed under it. This doesn't talk about the region. A category exists Category:Modern Palestinian weapons and that seems enough. Amoruso 19:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my comments above, Tewfik^Talk 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tewfik. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Weapons of Palestine; unused except for a single subcat that itself only has two or three items in it. Just make the subcat the main cat. --Aaron 04:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both Category:Weapons of Palestine and Category:Modern Palestinian weapons to Category:Palestinian weapons. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tewfik. Isarig 05:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Amoruso and Tewfik. --Shamir1 20:57, 14 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles to be merged since December 2005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I don't know if this is the right place to put this or not it's my first CfD. Anyway I found this category while meandering around wikipedia, it's empty and I don't see any reason for keeping it around. Whispering^(talk/c) 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI these can be listed as speedy deletes. Just add ((db-c1)) to the cat. Vegaswikian 19:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - looks like it's deleted and ready for closing? - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done!  David Kernow (talk) 06:17, 13 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Cor anglais players, it is for cor anglais players, and not english horn players. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per nom to remove ambiguity. David Kernow (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename as most of the English speaking world refers to the instrument by its English name: "English horn." Badagnani 21:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to remove ambiguity. News to me that a Cor anglais is called an English horn. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to avoid confusion. Also English horn redirects to cor anglais, which is the far more widely recognised term. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--"English Horn" is a misnomer, as the Cor anglais wasn't invented in England, nor is it a type of horn. bibliomaniac15 03:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Cor anglais" is a misnomer for the same reason. So what are you going to call it? —Blotwell 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - All I've heard so far is Wikipedian opinion. Are there any references which show preference one way or other? I think some band/symphony music catalogue listings of sheet music for the instrument (of several different countries) should work. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This may be another "varieties of English" phenomenon. However, as I'd say "English horn players" is definitely ambiguous, "Cor anglais players" plus note on category page for those unacquainted with the term is a solution. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename This is an American vs British (etc.) issue. But one title is ambiguous and the other is not. And this is consistent with the cor anglais article. —Blotwell 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Cor anglais please. I notice that Category:French horn players (which is "undisambiguable") was recently deleted altogether - I hope we never need Category:English cor anglais players! --RobertG ♬ talk 13:45, 19 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename. David Kernow (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science fiction books stubs to Category:Science fiction book stubs

• Rename; Long-needed plural cleanup, to conform with other book stub categories. Her Pegship 16:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy rename - though this should be at WP:SFD, not here (as you well know, Peg!) Grutness...wha? 23:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename - jc37 05:41, 13 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename per creator. David Kernow (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AIDS in film to Category:AIDS in film and television

• Rename, Meant to create the category with the proposed new name. Otto4711 14:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Dugwiki 14:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename, it includes television movies and shows. -- Dcflyer 16:19, 12 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete (it's empty now). --RobertG ♬ talk 08:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political thriller novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created for the sole purpose of including the novel Darkest Days (the novel) in it. Editors sole contributions concern that book and its author. Pascal.Tesson 14:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Calsicol 11:11, 15 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:School killings in the United States --Kbdank71 13:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:School massacres in the United States to Category:School shootings in the United States

• Rename, The term "massacre" is generally understood to mean "The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people." [1] Most (if not all) of the articles in this category have a kill count no higher than ~20 or so, and some only involved as little as one death (not counting the perpetrator). When compared to Category:Massacres (also currently up for deletion [2]), which mostly lists events that killed hundreds of thousands or millions of people, you can see that the term "school massacres" comes off as more of a POV opinion than as a hard fact. As such, I recommend a rename to Category:School shootings in the United States. (Note that one or two articles may end up being removed under this rename scheme, as they were bombings, not shootings.) --Aaron 23:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, but for different reasons. Anecdotally, "school shooting" seems to be much more common in the mass media than "school massacre" (e.g. [3] vs [4]; compare also various major news outlets listings of "school shooting incidents" and the like).-choster 23:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename; good reasoning here, and will hopefully set a precedent for future article naming for these sorts of events. -/- Warren 00:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename; not opposed to proposed solution, but has Category:Killings at schools in the United States been given any thought? That would allow the bombing article to remain in the category. Just a thought, but definitely not opposed to proposal.—Chidom ^talk  03:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion: perhaps a broader scope, such as Category:Crimes on school campuses, or Category:Homicides on school campuses? Her Pegship 05:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Murders at schools in the United States. Murders should be separated out here as they already are elsewhere in the category system, but there is no need to exclude any that didn't involve guns. Edton 11:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Recury 13:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "killings". Massacre is an emotionally laden term and unsuited for categorization. >Radiant< 13:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to killings - In addition to the above comments, also consider that it's theoretically possible (though fortunately hasn't happened) for someone to use weapons other than guns to go on a killing spree in a school. For instance, if someone went and blew up grenades or stabbed ten people, as a reader I'd probably want that article to be included in the same category as shootings. Therefore renaming to killings allows for a broader variety of articles on basically the same subject (hopefully a category that will remain as small as possible). Dugwiki 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to murders per Edton. Piccadilly 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but to Category:Violent incidents at schools in the United States per parent category. Note that the 'head' article is school massacre, also POV, and should probably be moved. I would prefer that there not be a separate category for the one or two non-gun-related incidents such as the Bath school disaster, which was a bombing and the highest death toll of any school violence in the US. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:School shootings in the United States, per nom. I don't think that there have been any knife or other weapon "massacres" at schools, for one thing. Second, it's clear, as opposed to a kid getting a black eye on the playground (incidents). And third, "murder" should be avoided, since it involves court proceedings (and thus citations - which would mean listifying). I also note that there is already a discussion about massacre on the Oct 4 CfD. - jc37 21:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (updated per the below comments by User:Carcharoth - jc37 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Objection - no CfD template has been placed on the page. Carcharoth 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now corrected – thanks for alert!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the relevant talk pages!!! - This discussion was an offshoot of the discussion on the massacres category. Someone then appears to have started this discussion on an American subcategory, without bothering to look around and see that there is a parent category: Category:School massacres, which is what should properly be discussed. If that had been done, then people could have read the relevant talk pages of the parent category. Please see Category_talk:School_massacres. That demonstrates that there are indeed many school killings that are not purely gun-related or gun-related at all. Examples are (weapon in brackets): Beslan_school_hostage_crisis (explosives); Ma'alot massacre (explosives); Bath_School_disaster (explosives); Poe Elementary School Attack (explosives); Cologne School Massacre (flamethrower and lance); Osaka school massacre (knife). Thus 'killings' is preferable to 'shootings'. Carcharoth 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:School killings in the United States and list other similar categories, including the parent category Category:School massacres, and the other subcategories of this category, for renaming. Please, can the closing admin notify the moving/renaming admin to use the 'move' function on the relevant talk pages to move them across as well, thus preserving comments like the one I point out above. Carcharoth 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please also note the surrounding category structure. There is a parent category called Category:Disasters in schools which covers five other notable events that caused loss of life in schools: Aberfan, Schoolhouse_Blizzard, Collinwood_School_Fire, New_London_School_explosion, Our_Lady_of_the_Angels_School_Fire. Any renaming should consider whether the wording 'killings' fits in with the surrounding category names. Carcharoth 13:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I still think "school shootings" is the "more common" phrase. However, it's obvious that we need a category for the explosions, etc. How about: support the nom, but create a new category called: Category:School killings in the United States as a sister sub-cat to school shootings? - jc37 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please do not list these as shootings. Not all of them involve guns. The Bath School disaster, for instance, was a bombing. Rename to something like Category:School killings in the United States as is mentioned above. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Note: The category wasn't tagged, so this is being relisted for another week. Original discussion here --Kbdank71 14:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Now tagged. David Kernow (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sorry about that, I just forgot. --Aaron 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to School killings in the United States per Chris G; I'd also support a similar rename for School massacres and its subcategories. David Kernow (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to School killings in the United States. I created the current category (based on the names of various articles), but this is now a better name. In addition, the super category School massacres and all its sub-categories should be similarly nominated for renaming so they all follow the same naming pattern. We do not need separate 'shootings' categories; fortunately, there are not enough of these events to justify this finer distinction. Thanks Hmains 04:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OBJECT, Bath School disaster was a bombing; category is subcat of Category:Violent incidents in the United States, not shootings in the United States. If RENAME, should be Category:Violent incidents at schools in the United States instead of School killings in the United States, since it's not the school that's being killed, it's the children and teachers. jengod 00:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't reckon people will read "School killings" to mean "Killings of schools"...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:40, 21 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emirates to Category:Emirates of the United Arab Emirates

• Rename, There are emirates which are not part of the UAE, eg Kuwait. There are other problems with the current name. Based on the contents I found some users mistake it for the national parent Category:United Arab Emirates and I myself expected it to be about the airline Emirates. Brammen 11:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as above LW77 00:55, 16 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vertical lift bridges to Category:Lift bridges

• Rename, the main article is at lift bridge. "Vertical lift bridge" is another name for "lift bridge". NE2 10:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Abstain per discussions below. David Kernow (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC), abstained 02:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Lift bridge and Moveable bridge are in rather dire need of citations. I also note that while according to wikitionary, the word is movable, the British version of the word (moveable - which wiktionary lists as an alternate spelling) is used instead. I think I am going to oppose due to the usage in St. Paul Union Pacific Vertical-lift Rail Bridge. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A moveable bridge is any type of bridge that moves - a lift bridge, bascule bridge, swing bridge, or any of several more obscure types.[5] There is something called a rolling lift bridge, but it is a kind of bascule bridge;[6] "lift bridge" on its own appears to refer only to vertical lift bridges. I will inform WikiProject Bridges of this discussion, so hopefully an expert can contribute. --NE2 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm a bridge engineer and to my way of thinking a lift bridge means exactly the same as a vertical lift bridge i.e. the word "vertical" is redundant. However, I've seen the term used to refer to other types of moveable bridge in colloquial (non-specialist) use, so there may be an argument there. Also, I am based in the UK and useage may be different elsewhere. I have a few specialist bridge encyclopaedias at home which I'll look up tonight and comment here further. --Kvetner 12:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Troyano's "Bridge Engineering: A Global Perspective", which is aimed mainly though certainly not entirely at a technical audience, calls them "vertical lift bridges" in every case, and does note also the existence of The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Company (who made bascule bridges). This leaves me in two minds but on the whole I would go with Rename to match the main lift bridge article, this is simpler overall. Incidentally, I note the request for citations above and will try and find time to put some into the mentioned articles. --Kvetner 17:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Kvetner's comments on professional use. To cover colloquial usages, a disambig should be all that is needed. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 14:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comments above. And noting: Kvetner's comment: "Troyano'sBridge Engineering: A Global Perspective, which is aimed mainly though certainly not entirely at a technical audience, calls them "vertical lift bridges" in every case, and does note also the existence of The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Company (who made bascule bridges)." - I think that "vertical" is necessary for disambiguation. - jc37 00:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per comments above. This doesn't seem to be a big deal. Both names are used and vertical lift appears to be the approved technical term. The only reason give for the rename is to get the article to match the category. I solved that problem by renaming the article which is much easier than renaming a category. I also categorized the redirect now at lift bridge so that someone browsing through the bridge category will find both lift bridge and vertical lift bridge. Problem solved. -- Samuel Wantman 17:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are redirects supposed to be in categories? --NE2 21:43, 21 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American mystery writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) merge into Category:American crime fiction writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These two categories define fields that are virtually synonymous in general parlance. There is already considerable overlap, with more than 50% of those listed as "American crime fiction writers" (29 out of 53) also listed as "American mystery writers." In almost every case beyond those currently overlapping, it is hard to see why a given writer qualifying for one category wouldn't qualify for the other. Merging the categories under either title would go far toward creating a comprehensive, nonconfusing list of American writers in the field. As for which title would be used for a merged category, while at present the "American mystery writers" category is approximately three times as large as "American crime fiction writers," the latter is preferable on the bases of both consistency and logic: the primary article discussing the field is crime fiction, which is also the broader term. —DCGeist 08:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The genres overlap, but are not really identical. I know people who read crime fiction, but think of mysteries as being for old women. As I understand it crime fiction is more about the criminal justice system whereas mysteries are more about figuring out who did the crime. Possibly the crime-writers category should be renamed "police procedurals" or something to lessen overlap. An admittedly off-point issue is I really don't want Category:American science fiction writers merged into Category:American fantasy writers, or vice versa, even though "common parlance" has them as synonymous.--T. Anthony 08:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your raising of Category:American science fiction writers vs. Category:American fantasy writers is precisely on point. The science fiction article distinguishes that genre from "fantasy" in the second sentences of its lede. Likewise, the fantasy article distinguishes that genre from "science fiction" in the second sentence of its lede. No analogous distinction exists nor, I warrant, can be established between "crime fiction" and "mysteries." Crime fiction includes police procedurals, as you suggest, as well as crime caper stories, psychological suspense stories, and--in the proper sense--"mysteries" (i.e., whodunits). Would you say simply making "American mystery writers" a subcategory of "American crime fiction writers" is sufficient to address the current categorization ambiguity? Best, Dan—DCGeist 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right in that crime fiction means something broader. Therefore mystery writers as a subcategory sounds acceptable by me, but just merging it where it no longer exists does not. That said I believe there are mysteries that are not any kind of crime fiction at all. I can't think of a good example, but it seems like I've heard of things called mysteries where they just are seeking clues to unravel some mysterious thing in history or something.--T. Anthony 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is overlap, but the differences are important. There is overlap in many parts of the category system, so the situation here isn't unusual and doesn't need to be resolved. Brammen 11:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you articulate what you see as the differences, so editors know which category to place authors in? Best, Dan—DCGeist 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge unless a clear distinction is made in category descriptions - Currently there are no category descriptions in either category, so frankly I have no idea how you're supposed to tell when to categorize a writer as a "mystery" writer versus a "crime fiction" writer. Unless a clear, objective method can be presented to distinguish the two in the actual category descriptions, these categories should be merged. Dugwiki 15:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised to Keep using updated definitions - Since I posted the above comment updated category descriptions have been added. The new descriptions, I think, make a good clarification between the two categories to help editors distinguish Crime Fiction from Mystery Fiction. As an example to show the difference based on the descriptions, I think The Godfather would be an example of Crime Fiction that is not a Mystery. By contrast, a story about trying to locate a person lost in the Alps could be a Mystery that isn't Crime fiction. Dugwiki 19:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather is a terrific example, Dugwiki--it's a perfect example of the distinction and it's famous. Adding to category description to increase its utility. —DCGeist 20:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and let's look for someone to clarify the explanatory text, per DCGeist. Her Pegship 16:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussants, please consider the new category descriptions as initiated by Pegship (um, Her Pegship) and revised and expanded on by the nominator (um, me). Do you think (a) they resolve the issue I originally raised (and which Dugwiki underscores), (b) they provide a good basis for such a resolution, but need to be further amplified (please describe how), or (c) the categories should still be merged, as originally proposed? —DCGeist 21:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose - Just because the genres types overlap doesn't mean you should merge them together. There is a difference between romantic comedy and comedy, for example. This is not a tree-based category system. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you address the central issue: If the two categories are going to be separately maintained, what is the most effective, appropriately encyclopedic way to distinguish between the two of them? How would you make clear to editors whether an author should be categorized as a "mystery writer" or "crime fiction writer" (or both)? The example you offer is not really on point--in common usage, "crime fiction" and "mystery" are used much more interchangeably (and, in the latter case, often in unquestionable contradiction with its "proper" meaning) than are "romantic comedy" and "comedy." Like it or not, it's not unusual to hear an Elmore Leonard caper novel referred to as a "mystery"; one doesn't hear references to the average Adam Sandler movie as a "romantic comedy." What's your solution?—DCGeist 09:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have never heard the terms used interchangeably and wonder if you can back this comment up. Certainly, I only read "crime fiction", never "mysteries". Contrary to the Leonard example above, I've never heard James Ellroy called a "mystery writer" - the focus in his books is on crime but the whodunnit element isn't really central. It's a UK reference but Murder One [7] bookshop makes a clear distinction in its header that it covers both "crime" and "mystery" books. US parlance may differ, of course. If you want a quick and easy solution you could consider merging and renaming the category to "American crime and mystery writers". --Kvetner 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I back it up?! Now you're talking my language!

Ellroy

The Black Dahlia--blurb from Andrew Vachss: "James Ellroy surges to the forefront of contemporary American mystery fiction."

L.A. Confidential--excerpt from L.A. Weekly review: ""Ellroy is the up-and-coming mystery writer of this decade, a more than worthy heir to John D. MacDonald."

many of his books--excerpt from Austin Chonicle review: "our best living mystery writer."

"hard-boiled mystery writer James Ellroy" (Confusion Is Next by Alec Foege, p. 177)

"mystery writer James Ellroy" (CBS News; he's also called "crime writer" in the same piece!)

"mystery novelist James Ellroy" (Bloomberg.com: Culture)

"Mystery writer James Ellroy" (Publishers Marketing Association)

"At the peak of his career as a mystery writer, James Ellroy..." (Books on Tape/A Division of Random House)

Will you trust me that it would be just as easy to back it up concerning Elmore Leonard? I'm ready to do so if there's any question about the matter.—DCGeist 18:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully noted! I suspect this is a difference in US/UK useage, I think you would be hard-pressed to give a similar example from my side of the Pond (I await to be proven wrong!) In any event, the changes made to the category descriptions seem clear enough. --Kvetner 21:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think it's clear there won't be a consensus to merge--I'll no longer push the case for that. If anybody has any thoughts on how to further improve the usefulness of the category descriptions, please weigh in. Best, Dan—DCGeist 22:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Andrew Vacchs doesn't write mystery, and Lillian Braun doesn't write crime fiction. Either keep both or merge both to a new category that clearly covers both genres. -Sean Curtin 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except...on Andrew Vachss's own official site, there appears an article with the following title: "Writing the Wrongs: Hard-boiled mystery author Andrew Vachss gets tough".—DCGeist 06:32, 16 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superstitious fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
One entry category, not likely to grow, better detailed in the character articles. CovenantD 06:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia; we wouldn't use that categorization for real people either. >Radiant< 09:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Ambiguous. —Xanderer 13:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete horrible, bad, awful POV category. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV problems. Dugwiki 15:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep As this is verging on a religion or belief category and those are accepted. Possibly it needs a rename like "Fictional characters who believe in superstitions", but something much less lame than that.--T. Anthony 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Radiant! and Chris Griswold—DCGeist 21:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another category in want of citations/references. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vague, nondescript, generally not relevant. -Sean Curtin 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcategorisation. Hiding Talk 21:23, 18 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lazy fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
POV category. CovenantD 05:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia; we wouldn't use that categorization for real people either. >Radiant< 09:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete horrible, bad, awful POV category. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV problem Dugwiki 15:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Radiant! and Chris Griswold—DCGeist 21:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another category in want of citations/references. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vague, nondescript, generally not relevant. -Sean Curtin 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't get how we determine it. Hiding Talk 21:23, 18 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poor fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bad phrasing (sounds like a lament), POV category. Already survived one CfD but most likely because it was lumped in with Category:Fictional perverts, which skewed the discussion. CovenantD 05:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia; we wouldn't use that categorization for real people either. >Radiant< 09:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete horrible, bad, awful POV category. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Where else can you find fictional characters who are poor? --(trogga) 15:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is poor can mean several things and it's a bit undefined. Possibly "impoverished characters" or "fictional characters below the poverty line" would be clearer. (If there's one thing I recall it's that Wikipedia gets many confused people so it's necessary to spell things out a bit)--T. Anthony 15:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Radiant! and Chris Griswold—DCGeist 21:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another category in want of citations/references. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vague, nondescript, generally not relevant. Would not oppose recreation under a more specific name. -Sean Curtin 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, how do we determine when a character is poor? At the start of the work or at the end? No, too broad. Hiding Talk 21:22, 18 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cheap fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Like Wealthy fictional characters, this is POV wording. At best, rename to Category:Fictional miserly characters. CovenantD 05:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia; we wouldn't use that categorization for real people either. >Radiant< 09:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete horrible, bad, awful POV category. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV problem Dugwiki 15:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Looks more like a character trait to me. If we delete this, then Category:Fictional psychopaths and Category:Fictional sociopaths should be deleted too.
• Delete per Radiant!, Chris Griswold, and Dugwiki. Unlike psychopaths and sociopaths (though admittedly, the distinction between the two is often ambiguous), "cheapness" is much harder to define and will raise POV issues in most, if not virtually all, cases.—DCGeist 21:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another category in want of citations/references. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vague, nondescript, generally not relevant. -Sean Curtin 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Who ever tried to buy them? It's not a good category, it doesn't clearly state what it sorts, it will become overpopulated and meaningless and could be contentious. Hiding Talk 21:21, 18 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wealthy fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Subjective, POV category without the possibility of meaningful clarification. CovenantD 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fictional millionaires and billionaires. That's awkward, but it's precise.--T. Anthony 08:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Fictional millionaires already exists. CovenantD 08:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I switch to Delete as a billionaire subsection can be added when needed.--T. Anthony 08:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia; we wouldn't use that categorization for real people either. >Radiant< 09:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I eventually voted delete, but a problem with this is that thus far the fictional categories are often used for what we can't categorize real people as for libel reasons. For example there are the following pairings: Category:Fictional homophobes, Category:Homophobes; Category:Fictional misogynists, Category:Misogynists; Category:Fictional disciplinarians, Category:Disciplinarians; Category:Fictional nerds, Category:Nerds; etc. Although in some cases there is no real equivalent possible, for example Category:Fictional immortals could not have a nonfictional equivalent. The "fictional", in those cases, sounds redundant but I think it's used to separate from mythology. Especially as I believe there are still Taoists out there who believe immortals exist.--T. Anthony 14:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete horrible, bad, awful POV category. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above Dugwiki 15:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Where else can you find fictional characters who are rich? --(trogga) 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think Category:Fictional millionaires and Category:Fictional nobility would cover most of it. Although looking through the category I'm less certain of that, I'll stick with delete for now.--T. Anthony 15:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Fictional millionaires is the one that should get the chop as the value of a million currency units varies wildly. In the UK, Japan, Zimbabwe and well just about everywhere having assets worth a million in the local currency means little as of 2006. Choalbaton 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pretty awful category, per Chris Griswold. Um, Choalbaton--per you comment in re the UK: "having assets worth a million in the local currency means little as of 2006." How many bloody pounds are you worth, mate? Pity the poor British millionaire! Oh...wait..."just about everywhere." Pity the poor American and Canadian millionare as well! —DCGeist 21:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment consider that 1 000 000 ¥ is worth about $8500 US. Even beyond that, $1 000 000 US may not be peanuts, but with a reasonably high-paying white-collar job and wise financial decisions it is a trivial matter to become a millionaire these days. The fact that an individual is a millionaire in US dollars is nothing special, either. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial"? Oh. OK. Well, we can all join hands and agree that there's nothing terribly special about having a million yen.—DCGeist 14:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Unlike the others above (let's hear it for copy/paste), this one is really worthy of a list. "Wealthy" in relation to the lifestyles of those around them, should not need a monetary amount for qualification. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC) [Changed from delete to weak keep, per the discussion - jc37 02:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)][reply]
• Keep Wealth is a key theme in fiction. This covers it, whereas categories named for arbitary numbers do not. Hawkestone 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the more useful fictional character categories. Calsicol 11:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (possibly reverse merge) with Category:Fictional millionaires. -Sean Curtin 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, can't see the value. Wealth may be a key theme in fiction, but that makes for a good article, not a category. This is going to be controversial, large, potentially unmaintainable and trivial. Hiding Talk 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Wealth is a key element of not only reality, but fiction as well. A person's behavior, such as Veruca Salt's screaming, obviously comes from the wealth of the family that the child is in. Angie Y. 15:54, 19 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and subcategories listed below

Category:Subnational entities to Category:Country subdivisions

Rationale: A "subnational entity" might be something such as a company, organiz/sation etc; suggest "subnational division" gives clearer indication as to category's contents and subject area.

Similarly,

Category:Lists of subnational entities to Category:Lists of country subdivisions

Category:Ranked lists of subnational entities to Category:Ranked lists of country subdivisions

Category:Subnational entities in Europe to Category:Country subdivisions of Europe

Category:Subnational entities in the Americas to Category:Country subdivisions of the Americas

Also,

Category:Subdivisions of historic countries to Category:Subdivisions of former empires and countries  Category:Subdivisions of former countries (amended per discussion below)

Rationale: Describes contents more accurately.

See also related WP:WPCSub project discussions. All these categories are due to be populated further.

• Rename all as nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename all per nom Hmains 04:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom, except Subdivisions of historic countries to Subdivisions of former countries and empires. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason/s, Tobias...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldnt "Subdivisions of former countries" be better? Empire here is more like form of governement, e.g. Russia is Russian Federation and was Russian Empire. But in both cases could be Russia, the country. IMO having only country is more consistent. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood; How about Subdivisions of former regions, as I see there's an even wider variety of nations etc within the subcategories...?  Yours, David (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. Stick with "country". Let's only use the words "subdivison" and "country" for the top level. Region is already one specific type in the current scheme/hierarchy. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good point... I'm just not sure, though, that all the named areas within the empire subcategories are/were 'countries' – hence my including the (top-level) "empires" as well as "countries" in the proposed name as a catch-all. In short, I feel "Subdivisions of former countries" would not be sufficiently descriptive; is there anything other than "Subdivisions of former empires and countries" that might be...?   Thanks for your input, David (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • right now, no idea. Category:Categories of former countries uses "... of former countries" - no empires. Category:Former countries in the Balkans includes empires. Can you withdraw/change your proposal? BTW looks like Category:Historical regions needs clean up. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, it's not something that needs settling right now, so I've amended the proposal to Subdivisions of former countries. At least that (sometimes ambiguous) word "historic" is avoided (even though, yes, I'd say its meaning is unambiguous here). Thanks for your pointer toward Historical regions; I've added this category to my slightly-long to-do list. Yours, David (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • ;-) great cu soon on related topics Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. And nice catch on the ambiguous word "historic", DK. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A subnational entity applies regardless whether the country has true subdivisions (that when all are put together form the entire country) or only a part of the country has the particular type of subdivision. Also the term 'subdivision' is rather impolite when used essentially for people, which is the case for instance for the communities of Belgium (people speaking one of the country's official languages, institutionally limited to well-defined geographical circumscriptions where these languages prevail). Also the use of "in" is undisputable, unlike "of" which has a connotation of belonging to, being controlled by the national level, which is not always true; whether this is the case or not may belong in an article, not in its title or a category. It also avoids awkward 'Category:Lists of country subdivisions|subnational entities' e.g. for Belgium this must become ':Lists of Belgian <whatever>'; with "in" it can always remain standard: 'Lists of <whatever> in Belgium'. The theoretical consideration of a subnational entity being a company or such, is rather preposterous: it is a common, established term that is never used or interpreted in such wrong way. — SomeHuman 17 Oct2006 19:45 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Thanks for your thoughts, SomeHuman; I wonder, however, if you might be reading too much into the proposal. First, I don't think I follow your first sentence; would you mind rephrasing it...?  Second, whatever the terminology used (i.e. whether it includes "entity" or "division"), it is an abstraction that ultimately pertains to people, so I'm not sure why either "entity" or "division" should be any more or less polite than the other – unless, I suppose, "division" is read as if acting divisively; or, conversely, "entity" is read as something like "organ of the state". Both these readings strike me as odd (and I don't think either is what you have in mind...?)  Finally, I'm not sure it's safe to assume everyone will interpret "subnational entity" in one particular way, especially if an English language and/or English-related culture is not someone's first language or culture. (I agree that the same holds for "country subdivision", but suggest this is not as abstract as "subnational entity".)  Apologies in advance if I've missed/misunderstood anything, David Kernow (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re "in"/"of", I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions and/or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) carry the rationale; re "List/s of X in Country", this might suggest all Xs are of a identical or similar nature. Regards, David (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence I refer to the connotation of being cut in parts, this always suggests that the whole became partialized. In that sense, provinces in Belgium are subnational entities (units smaller that the nation [though entity does not suggest equal or interchangeable in a way unit could be seen]) but subdivisions only of regions, because another region in Belgium has no provinces. This does not withstand the provinces being subnational entities of Belgium.

Such cutting up of a country into groups of people, or simply said: dividing it, sounds almost as setting them up against each other. People can play sports in first division, or in second division, they are no division. And certainly no subdivision. Indeed 'entity' is more abstract, which leaves emotions out: it does not remind anyone of people being placed in divided (not thinking a same way) parts [even if different attitudes might exist, it is not correct to suggest that]; or a group of people that is merely a part [each group of people is always a whole]; or the group of people being a sublevel, that is a lower level. Subnational reminds of 'under the Nation', while 'Nation' is the group of people of a country, this group includes the entity's group of people. Thus the communities of Belgium are subnational entities, not subdivisions. — SomeHuman 21 Oct2006 03:44-03:56 (UTC)

I think what you're identifying here is not a problem with this CfD nomination but a (possible) problem with Wikipedia's current categoriz/sation/characteriz/sation of Belgium's communities...?  Even so, for me "country subdivision" has no overtones of division between or suppression of peoples/nations ("country division", for example, might), whereas I can imagine (at a stretch) that "subnational entity" might. Yours, David (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with categorization cannot be seen separate from this CfD: Though Belgian communities are subnational entities, the groups of people are institutionally defined depending on the geographical boundaries within which languages prevail; an individual may move to the Brussels-Capital region which is a bilingual area, another individual lived in that area all his/her live; no distinction is made between those two. Such individual does not make any statement about which language he/she has and does not necessarily need to be bilingual. Thus though the communities as groups of people are subnational entities, there is no subnationality in Belgium for individuals. Therefore, the category:Subnational entities is the sole category that applies for these communities. — SomeHuman 21 Oct2006 10:03 (UTC)

...but this reads as if you begin by begging the question ("Though Belgian communities are subnational entities...")...?  Also, I still don't understand what application your observation might have beyond Belgium and maybe one or two other countries...?  If anyone else is reading this, am I missing something...?   David (talk) 18:17, 21 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First-order administrative divisions to Category:First-level national administrative divisions

Category:Second-order administrative divisions to Category:Second-level national administrative divisions

Category:3rd-level administrative divisions to Category:Third-level national administrative divisions

Category:4th-level administrative divisions to Category:Fourth-level national administrative divisions

Rationale: These structures most commonly referred to as "levels"; see the various articles/templates on countries' administrative divisions and relevant external sites. Written ordinals ("first", "third", etc) also common. These categories are due to be populated further.

• Rename all as nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename all per nom Hmains 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename all per nom Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC) - oppose - use of the word national seems not a good choice. Was mentioned several times on related project pages. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops – I forgot to remove "national" when pasting this group of nominations back into CfD. It seems, however, that other folk here aren't perturbed by it; I reckon most English-speaking people would say the adjective for "country" is "national", as it is for "nation". I think there needs to be some indication as to what kind of administrative divisions these categories address. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taboo activities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category is too subjective. GilliamJF 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - GilliamJF 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but perhaps revise the scope. The study of taboos is an important part of ethnography and other sociology topics such as sexology. This isn't simply POV but more of a potential OR problem. --Dhartung | Talk 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, inherent POV since anything that's taboo in one society can be accepted practice in another. >Radiant< 09:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too subjective --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, taboos are too subjective and localized. Dugwiki 15:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The category system lacks the subtlety required to cover this topic appropriately. Choalbaton 21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Taboo by who? : ) - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spitting, heh. Pavel Vozenilek 23:57, 13 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete Category:MOTDuser; Category:MOTD rename/merge to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Motto of the day --Kbdank71 13:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MOTDuser to Category:Wikipedians who use MOTD

Category:MOTD to Category:Wikipedins who frequently contribute to MOTD

I think these should be moved to match other Wikipedian categories. A category known as "MOTD" ought to be reserved for pages relating to Wikipedia:Motto of the day itself. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:MOTD to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Motto of the day. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:MOTDuser. This just lists who has the Motto of the day posted to their userpage. I don't see the use for the category. - jc37 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename categories using Motto of the Day instead of MOTD - I'd recommend using the full phrase instead of the abbreviation to avoid possible ambiguity with, for example, "Message of the Day" (which is likewise a common abbreviation). Dugwiki 19:21, 13 October 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 section.