< December 15	December 17 >

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional lemurs and tarsiers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose deletion Withdrawn, per my statement below

Nominator's rationale:Extremely limited growth potential. Unless fictional protosimians are the Next Big Thing, in which case "WP:NOT#CBALL". Gladys j cortez (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• True but Keep as part of wider scheme I tend to feel (weakly). You would have to merge 2 ways if this is deleted. Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure what you mean by "merge 2 ways"--I'm new to a lot of this stuff!--but since I apparently bollixed up the whole template-placing process, I'm withdrawing the proposed deletion on the grounds that nobody who actually cared about the category would be able to find, and thus participate in, this conversation. (Still learning all this wiki-business.)Gladys j cortez (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should be merged to a lemurs category, and to a fictional animals one. You can't just leave them orphaned, or unrepresented in those trees. In general it's best to have fictional animals in their own sub-cat at some level, so as not to irritate the zoologists by mixing them in the main cat. Check out other debates & you'll get the hang of it. See WP:OCAT for the "wider scheme exception" Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. The proposed rename doesn't cover the category's contents, and the other suggestions didn't garner enough support.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gambling companies to Category:Casino companies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These companies do not gamble, they operate casinos. The current title is not a term normally used by the companies or the financial community. Since Category:Gaming companies would be ambiguous, this seems to be a reasonable second best choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep most are online only; some like Ladbrokes run betting shops & football pools but not casinos. Johnbod (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Any that are online-only should really be categorized in Category:Gambling websites. Sports books should be in Category:Bookmakers. Maybe the category should be diffused and based on the remaining articles we can make a better decision. Otto4711 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a companies category - several should be, and are, in several of these categories, like Ladbrokes, though I expect many of the websites only belong in that category. I can't see me changing my keep anyway; no doubt it's different in Vegas, but casinos are a small part of the gambling industry in the UK. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling websites has nothing to do with this category, even if some but certainly not all of these companies operate gambling websites. 2005 (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a better name then that does not mis classify the companies? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As it is seems ok to me, apart from the possible ambiguity. Or Category:Companies in Gambling or "the gambling industry", "Gambling industry companies" etc. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Category:Gaming companies (wagering) or Category:Gaming companies (gambling)? Since they are gaming companies, the name is correct and the disambiguation indicates which type of gaming. I think the first is the broadest and most neutral. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a problem with "gambling"? - it is the normal term in the UK, although I think the industry itself prefers "gaming" as a euphemism, but it is rarely used in the media, & never in normal conversation. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Most state regulations, and regulations for many countries, are for gaming and not gambling. Just about every financial listing has these as gaming and not gambling. As I said above this are not gambling companies, they don't gamble. What exactly is a gambling company? I'd say that the companies in this category are taking a lot fewer risks (gambling) then most other companies. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I'm not convinced. Gambling is the main article for this, to which Betting redirects (compare Gaming). Also the online category above, and Online gambling. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gambling is about the activity so it is a reasonable name for that article. It is not about the industry. If you look at the article, many of the headings cover the games used. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sophistry. Sorry, Vegaswikian, but nobody would assume that "gambling companies" refers to the financial management of the company; especially in the context of wikipedia where everything else is "subject companies". "Advertising companies" aren't so named because they advertise themselves; "Aluminum companies" aren't so named because they're made of aluminum. ... As for the general point, I hear you that regulatory authorities use "gaming", but why should we privilege the regulatory authority terminology over other ordinary usage terminology? "Gambling" is also well-known terminology and pretty understandable, with no possibility of confusion with the D&D crowd. --Lquilter (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term used in the UK is "Leisure companies", Category:Leisure companies of the United Kingdom. Nowhere besides the Wikipedia are these companies called gambling companies. 2005 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is far broader, for a whole sector including hotels, gyms, cinemas & other stuff. Johnbod (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, so? They are called leisure companies, not gambling companies, or elbows. 2005 (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Category:Gaming companies (gambling) The category was changed to its current foolish title despite all logic and social/governemental practice to the contrary. These are gaming companies. That is what they are defined as by governments and by the industry itself. The Wikipedia should not obtusely try and change society. The suggestion of "casino companies" is also very bad because that is also not what they are. Gaming companies include "Leisure companies", "poker companies", "slot machine and other product companies" and more. These all are gaming companies, but certainly not all casino companies. There is no reason to not name a category its most clear, most obvious, and most socially consistent name. Gaming is a word used by lots of industries, but these are simply gaming companies that are pigeon-holed by their involvement with gambling. 2005 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaming is a word used by lots of industries, but ... pigeon-holed by their involvement with gambling." No, "gaming" is commonly understood by a fairly large crowd to also refer to RPGs, boggle, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support a category named "Gaming companies (Gambling)". This is the most commonly used phrase to describe these types of companies, and having the word "gambling" in parenthesis distinguishes the category from other types of games. (Although I don't know of any companies in the RPG, boardgame, or video game industries which are actually called "Gaming companies". They're usually called "RPG publishers" or "Boardgames publishers" or "Video game companies". Rray (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There was a prior CFD on this on 2007/1/11 (link) -- it renamed "Gaming companies" to "Gambling companies". It would be really nice if prior discussions were referenced. --Lquilter (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and proposal - Anyway, we have Category:Gambling, which has a child Category:Casinos. In at least some instances the entity would be both a company and a casino; in other instances, a company operates multiple casinos and would be better described just as a company. I'd be included to make Category:Gambling businesses into which I would put Category:Casinos, Category:Casino businesses (proposing "businesses" to include both the companies that operate multiple casinos and the tribal territories/nations/groups that operate a casino), and Category:Gambling websites. Bookmakers or sports gambling businesses or horse racing betting businesses and what-not can be gathered into appropriate non-casino, non-website categories that don't have to be thought of right now, but could fit in this category structure. There. (PS - I don't like "gaming companies" or its disambiguations because of the confusion with non-gambling gaming. While regulatory bodies adopt the "gaming" terminology I see no reason why we have to privilege the regulatory terms over the other common usage of "gambling".) --Lquilter (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gambling is an activity. Casinos are places that offer games and other activities that you can wager on. Gaming is what is used in legislation and officially by the companies and analysts. Using parenthetical disambiguation is the policy on this wiki so I don't understand you opposition to disambiguation when it is called for. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't oppose disambiguation; I support the simple common language which will be understandable. (Actually I support "Casino businesses" for this category, as you see above, and "gambling businesses" for the whole.) --Lquilter (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reinvention of the language is certainly no solution. What possible confusion could "gaming companies (gambling)" make occur? Seriously, what is this reluctance to use normal language instead of convoluted inaccuracies? Put another way, if the world uses the same word to cover multiple things, it's the equivalent of original research to seek to rename things differently here. Our job is not word creation. We should disambiguate, not inappropriately invent or philosophize. 2005 (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is "casino businesses" a convoluted inaccuracy? --Lquilter (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of whether or not it's a "convoluted inaccuracy, it's not the phrase that the rest of the world uses to describe these companies, so it's not the phrase that the Wikipedia should use either. We're not here to coin new phrases to describe business sectors. Rray (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because they aren't merely casino businesses? Why this need to slap obviously non-standard inappropriate names on something that has a mainstream, common, worldwide usage? Calling slots manufacturers or poker companies 'casino businesses' is beyond silly. We have a Category:Casinos. Why would we call that anuything else? Why would we say "casino businesses"... to distinguish from the casino that aren't businesses? This category is the broad parent of the various niches of the gaming industry: casinos, manufacturers, poker companies. It should be called what the world calls that, not something that makes no sense. These companies are known as leisure and gaming companies or gaming companies. These ILIKEIT arguments really should be put an end to. Many of us might wish to rename Moral Majority to something more ILIKEIT like Dickhead Majority, but we aren't here to ignore common usage and make stuff up we like. 2005 (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is wrong with using the common and well used term with appropriate disambiguation is why it is convoluted. It is gaming, gaming is ambiguous so use some form of gaming and disambiguate. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is clear that casio companies are a sub-set of gambling companies, and it would be appropriate to create the proposed new sub-category in any case. However, I believe that the use of term companies is too narrow for this purpose. In the UK the correct term for "casino companies" is actually "casino operators" {http://www.casinooperatorsassociation.org.uk/]. Admittedly, most of these operators are companies, but in the United States there are organizations, tribes and businesses engaged in tribal gaming enterprises [1]. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is perfectly acceptable to have Category:Casino operators of the United Kingdom under a company parent if that is the correct UK terminology. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (if not changed to Category:Gaming companies (gambling)). Casino companies is totally inappropriate. There are bingo companies, lotteries, manufacturers, etc., in this category. We already have a Category:Casinos so there is no need at all for this rename. Gambling companies is obtuse, but changing this name to casino companies would require moving everything out of the category to new categories, except the current casinos category. That's well beyond silly. 2005 (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there are some gambling commissions, consider the Nevada Gaming Commission the oldest, I believe, in the US, Kahnawake Gaming Commission, National Indian Gaming Commission, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, Michigan Gaming Commission, St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Gaming Commission, Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission. I could go on, but I believe this disproves the euphemism argument. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Category:2007 U.S. Open and Category:2007 U.S. Open (golf).JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2007 U.S. Open (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Golf or Tennis? One should not be grouped with the other. Either make a criteria and get rid of the other one or just delete it. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the tennis one already exists and a golf one isn't necessary since there is only one 2007 US Golf Open article. Recury (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 19:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Health associations to Category:Medical and health professional associations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Health associations is ambiguous. The category was defined to be "This category is for health professional associations." so the rename would just match that definition (plus modification to follow the recent CFD for Category:Medical and health organizations. Lquilter (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete JERRY ^talk_contribs 05:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As defined this is overcategorization by accrediting entity (perhaps we will someday need a new section of "WP:OCAT"). The category is described as "This is a category for schools accredited by Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education." As defined, that's overcategorization. Since there are only two articles in there (one is Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education, and the other is a school) I would submit that there's no need to repurpose this category to capture all the important ACPE activity articles, either. Lquilter (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Must potentially include zillions of colleges, for which it is not at all defining. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's a really crappy & unpopular accreditation body. <g> Maybe it only has two! Zillions or two or anywhere in between, "categorization by accreditation body" is a bad idea. --Lquilter (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all. Merge completed, I deleted old cats but left their talk pages in place. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging or renaming:

Category:Airlines of Myanmar to Category:Airlines of Burma

Category:Arts in Myanmar to Category:Arts in Burma

Category:Biota of Myanmar to Category:Biota of Burma

Category:Communications in Myanmar to Category:Communications in Burma

Category:Companies of Myanmar to Category:Companies of Burma

Category:Economy of Myanmar to Category:Economy of Burma

Category:Education in Myanmar to Category:Education in Burma

Category:Energy in Myanmar to Category:Energy in Burma

Category:Environment of Myanmar to Category:Environment of Burma

Category:Ethnic groups in Myanmar to Category:Ethnic groups in Burma

Category:Festivals in Myanmar to Category:Festivals in Burma

Category:Geography of Myanmar to Category:Geography of Burma

Category:Headlands of Myanmar to Category:Headlands of Burma

Category:High Schools in Myanmar to Category:High schools in Burma

Category:Islands of Myanmar to Category:Islands of Burma

Category:Lakes of Myanmar to Category:Lakes of Burma

Category:Landforms of Myanmar to Category:Landforms of Burma

Category:Languages of Myanmar to Category:Languages of Burma

Category:Maps of Myanmar to Category:Maps of Burma

Category:Mountains of Myanmar to Category:Mountains of Burma

Category:Myanmar culture to Category:Burma culture

Category:Myanmar media to Category:Burmese media

Category:National symbols of Myanmar to Category:National symbols of Burma

Category:Natural disasters in Myanmar to Category:Natural disasters in Burma

Category:Places of worship in Myanmar to Category:Places of worship in Burma

Category:Planned airlines of Myanmar to Category:Planned airlines of Burma

Category:Rivers of Myanmar to Category:Rivers of Burma

Category:Settlements in Myanmar to Category:Settlements in Burma

Category:Sport in Myanmar to Category:Sport in Burma

Category:Sports venues in Myanmar to Category:Sports venues in Burma

Category:Subdivisions of Myanmar to Category:Subdivisions of Burma

Category:Tourism in Myanmar to Category:Tourism in Burma

Category:Trade unions of Myanmar to Category:Trade unions of Burma

Category:Universities and colleges in Myanmar to Category:Universities and colleges in Burma

Category:Visitor attractions in Myanmar to Category:Visitor attractions in Burma

Category:Volcanoes of Myanmar to Category:Volcanoes of Burma

Nominator's rationale: Merge or rename to match parent category, Category:Burma and parent article, Burma. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Can we have a link to the recent debate here on this issue? Johnbod (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that consistency is desirable, but this is a hot potato and a possible POV conflict. The country calls itself Myanmar, and this has been accepted by the UN. Perhaps the article and the parent category should be changed from Burma to Myanmar. However, the US and UK have not accepted the name change and the pro-democracy movement does not accept it. Which name you use is said to be a guide on how soft you are on the dictatorship. This is a difficult one. How can we get a NPOV name? --Bduke (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree about the desirability of consistency, but I just can't support a rename to "Burma". The country is internationally known as "Myanmar" and I think it's unfortunate that the main article was hastily renamed to "Burma", a name from colonial times, in reaction to the 2007 Burmese anti-government protests. The use of "Burma" is an artifact of systemic bias, and I can't support its extension into the category namespace. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I tend to agree. So can we change all the categories to Myanmar then? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support that. After reading over the "requested move" discussions at Talk:Burma and its archives, I do not believe that consensus – as measured by the quality of arguments – was ever achieved. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Put simply, rename to match the lead article. If we need another rename discussion then lets have it on the article talk page which would provide more editors providing input then a proposed change here. This is not the best place to discuss a rename of the article. As others have said, this is not a clean decision to make. But lets follow the main article. I would go so far as to say I support an automatic rename to keep the category names in sync with the main article if it changes. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to go now, but the categories that have not be renamed are: Category:Birds of Myanmar, Category:Fauna of Myanmar, Category:Cities in Myanmar, Category:Landforms of Myanmar (and its daughter cats.), Category:Myanmar geography stubs, Category:Myanmar stubs, Category:History of Myanmar (and its daughters), and Category:Ethnic groups in Myanmar. If, for some reason, the vote is to keep them named at "Myanmar," I'll be happy to move them back. Otherwise, I'd be happy to be the one to move them to "Burma." I'll be on Wikipedia tomorrow. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I type this AWB and I are finishing up the last few cities and history. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: In my view this is an improper close, by a heavily involved party, after less than 24 hours, not to mention with no link to a very recent discussion on the same subject here - will an admin please re-open. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this should not have been closed, since everything was already moved I think taking this to deletion review or simply opening a new nomination would be the better way to go. The person who acted out of policy should do the work of the tagging since they created the problem. If I can find a user warning about this, I'll slap it on the users page. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion review has been opened. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing admin, I agree with your objection. Please see my comments at the delrev linked above. In it I explain how I made the mistake. If the delrev was not already in place by the time I was told about the objection, I could have simply reopened it with an apology, but now there is a process that has to be followed. Sorry for the error. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The DELREV has been closed with a result of endorse closure.JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all. Kbdank71 19:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging:

• Category:Nesoscaptor to Category:Talpidae
• Category:Scapanulus to Category:Talpidae
• Category:Scaptochirus to Category:Talpidae
• Category:Scaptonyx to Category:Talpidae
• Category:Urotrichus to Category:Talpidae
• Category:Poelagus to Category:Leporidae

Nominator's rationale: Merge, these taxonomical genus categories were bot-generated, but there is only one species in each genus. Eliyak T·C 20:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The following comment was made before the nomination of Category:Poelagus was merged with the others:
• Comment. Is the category a part of a series? Vegaswikian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other same-level subcategories of the parent Category:Leporidae, but no other single-species genera have their own categories. (If they did, I would also nominate them for deletion). --Eliyak T·C 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom; many monotypic genera cats have been emptied and speedied before, this family shouldn't have a different outcome. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 19:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Underground to Category:Underground culture

Nominator's rationale: Rename, ambiguous. Category description states that its main article is underground culture, so let's go with that to make it clear that this doesn't refer to things physically subterranean. 74.72.53.184 (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match main article. Snocrates 07:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, I would have guessed this was about the London Underground considering how many raildorks there are on here, so yeah, rename. Recury (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename current name is waaay too ambiguous. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 19:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minden High School (Minden, Louisiana) faculty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - secondary educational affiliation is rarely if ever defining. A more comprehensive list already exists at the article for the school. Otto4711 (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In part because employment is subject to frequent change, person by employer categorisation should reflect only notable appointments. In general, people do not become notable as a result of teaching at a secondary institution. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Snocrates 07:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; high school faculty is a step too far. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is in fact the only category for high school faculty to be found in Category:People by high school in the United States. Thank goodness Category:Cincinnati High School faculty hasn't been created yet, so let's nip this in the bud! Btw, the creator has been extremely industrious, creating dozens of bio articles about local personalities, most of which have been AFD'd. Cgingold (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 19:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Lists of awards by musical artist to Category:Lists of awards by musician

Nominator's rationale: Merge - "musical artist" is non-standard. Naming convention is "musician." See for example Category:Musicians and the majority of its subcats. Otto4711 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Either name is fine with me but "musicians" is somewhat preferred because it is more succinct, and for consistency with most other fields using "musicians" (taking that Otto4711 is correct that most use "musicians" not "musical artists"). --Lquilter (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Lists of awards by musician for consistency. Spellcast (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 19:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Fictional books and Category:Video game items. Single-item category, no clear growth potential. Easily confused with Category:Books about video games. Otto4711 (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as narrow intersection. –Pomte 06:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Spellcast (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Not Important (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Clearly a category created to disparage the only article in it. It should never have been created - CSD categories for nonsense and vandalism already exist. Probable speedy candidate. _Jame§^ugrono 13:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as an attack category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 19:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football (soccer) clubs season to Category:Football (soccer) seasons by club

Nominator's rationale: Pluralisation fix, bring nomenclature into line with other subcats of Category:Seasons in football (soccer). Qwghlm (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, the proposed title is much clearer. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 19:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Peace prizes to Category:Peace awards

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform with parent Category:Awards by subject. Not all are "prizes"; "awards" is more generic term. Snocrates 08:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - and to conform with Category:Awards in general. --Lquilter (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Kbdank71 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CND organisations to Category:Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament organisations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Snocrates 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - NCCAT is correct here, because "CND" is ambiguous and would be better understood spelled out. --Lquilter (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The parent is not so huge that fragmenting out these few articles is required. The articles themselves are all pretty stubby and thought should probably be given to merging them to the main article or a list article but even if that doesn't happen the organisations category itself is unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Otto, or rename anyway. Johnbod (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If upmerged then also upmerge to Category:Anti-nuclear organizations, to maintain the organizations in the "organizations" tree. --Lquilter (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that too. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to both parents - No real need for this sub-cat, especially since all of the CND org. articles say precisely what they're about right in the title. Cgingold (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 19:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the International Psychoanalytic Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic. If no consensus to delete, rename to Category:International Psychoanalytical Association members per the main article (International Psychoanalytical Association) and the convention of Category:Members of organizations. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Leadership of a professional org like this may be defining, but probably not mere membership. Snocrates 08:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Includes both organizational and individual members, and membership is simply a matter of joining, not a particular honor. Categorization by membership in something is overcat. --Lquilter (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Officers of the International Psychoanalytic Association , removing the third article Lopez-thingy (up for AfD anyway). Normally you join your national shrink body, which is affiliated to this, but IPA officers are notable I think. Johnbod (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, sure, as in we would mention it in their biographical articles; but defining, such that wikipedia users need an automatic index of this very important aspect of someone's life? --Lquilter (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 19:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:San Jose State Spartans football players

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category, as there exists Category:San José State Spartans football players, for which category is a subcategory. DandyDan2007 (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to correspond with the title San José State Spartans. –Pomte 06:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 18:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Notable Sammamish High School Alumni to Category:Sammamish High School alumni

Nominator's rationale: notable was pov word Yamada2323 (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining. What university someone attends is rarely defining, let alone the high school. Snocrates 08:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agreed, high school alumni status is rarely if ever defining. Otto4711 (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Snocrates & Otto; while the community seems to have settled upon the notion that high schools are notable, this does not make their alumni, faculty, class rooms, curricula, ROTC, extracurricular activities including sports and the arts, music, etc. notable nor defining for those who pass chanced to pass through them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 18:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Major figures of the Hebrew Bible to Category:Figures of the Hebrew Bible
• Category:Major roads in Perth, Western Australia to Category:Roads in Perth, Western Australia
• Category:Major urban fires in the United States to Category:Urban fires in the United States
• Category:Major cities in North Dakota to Category:Cities in North Dakota
• Category:Major Torah figures to Category:Torah figures

Rename and merge - 'Major' is Pov word.--Yamada2323 (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete appropriately because "major" is redundant; it means "notable", basically, and unless they're notable they won't be in wikipedia anyway. (Besides, where are the major league baseball players? Oh, right ... ) --Lquilter (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - as far as the Bible/Torah categories are concerned, is there scholarship that divides the characters into "major" and "minor" classification? It's been yonks since my comparative religion classes but I have this vague memory of textbooks describing certain OT prophets as "minor prophets." For the other three nominated categories, merge/rename per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See "major prophet" and "minor prophet." "Major figures" is obviously something different. 74.72.53.184 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""Major figures" is intended to separate out the "famous" Biblical figures to whom the text devotes much time from the myriad persons mentioned only in passing or in a non-central context. These currently populate Category:Hebrew Bible people and Category:Torah people. --Eliyak T·C 19:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Major & minor prophets aren't one of the categories anyway! But as below it's a Christian term lumping together prophets that had I think shorter sets of prophecies (as reflected in the length of the books). --Lquilter (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom. If not "major", they would not warrant haing an article becuase they will be NN. Minor prophets are "minor" becasue they are shorter. I believe they alternatively appear as the "Book of the Twelve". Despite the "minor" appellation, they are notable, though in most cases we know little about them as individuals. Accordingly Otto4711's difficult hardly arises. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom, except the Perth Roads. I'm not clear if "major road" is an official classification here, but in any case it is a fairly objective & relevant distinction, not mere puffery; different colours on maps etc. The article is little help on this. Johnbod (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we have many "major" and "minor" cats and articles about, more in the article space than in cat space, but the divisional POV is inherent in both. In the normal article sphere it seems "minor" characters are those who cannot have a meaningful article written about them beyond the stubbiest of stubs. "Major" are the others. There may be sufficient biblical scholarship that an article could be written about the least known figure, so in WP parlance there may be no "minor" figures in the Bible. So for the Bible cats, I'd agree with the nom. I hope that we consider what happens in article space to follow through there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "major prophet" and "minor prophet" are long-established terms, and well-understood divisions; "major figures" etc are different. People may often talk about the "major works" of writers, painters etc, or "major battles" in wars, but there will be no generally agreed definition of which is which & the term should I think be avoided where possible in article titles, though perfectly acceptable in text. Most articles can & should be renamed without much trouble - adding something to the text. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relisted on dec 24. Kbdank71 18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Prelates by type to Category:Prelates

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Category has only a single, under-populated parent and itself contains no articles, only subcategories. Upmerge to parent would eliminate an unnecessary intermediate cat. Quale (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expanding the category, and see a lot of more articles and subcategories, that would not be rightly cataloged under the category:prelates and would be too extensive (in the long run)Stijn Calle (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the "types" by which you're planning to categorize? --Lquilter (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What could possibly be correct categorized under "Prelates by type" that wouldn't be rightly cataloged under "Prelates" ???? "Prelates by type" is a subcat of "Prelates" so this makes no sense. The category has existed since May... Quale (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is a strange category tree. All the sub-categories appear to be Roman Catholic ones, but several people in the other branch (by nationality) appear to Lutheran, and in one Icelandic case not Christian. Bishops (and such like) will normally appear as such. "Prelates" seems to be a home for prominent abbots and other senior clergy. The subject needs to be more clearly defined. There may be a case for up-merging bith the Natioanlity and Type categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and relocate to Category:Roman Catholic titular prelates by type and as sub-cat of Category:Roman Catholic Prelatures respectively. Then it has a use. The creator has a tendency to over-create useless categories (they did all the apparitions, visionaries without approval etc etc a while back), but this one is salvageable. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and relocate per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Burger restaurants to Category:Restaurants

Nominator's rationale: Merge, articles are being added to this category on the grounds that the hamburger appears on their menu, which is overcategorization. Gilliam (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I refined the introduction of Category:Burger restaurants to make it clear that simply serving burgers does not make a restaurant part of this category. Upmerging would do more harm then fixing the problems in the cat introduction. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, this (and its subcat) should be renamed to "hamburger" to avoid the slang/abbreviation. No opinion on the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not have a problem if renamed to Category:Hamburger restaurants. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The intro does not adequately define 'burger restaurant'. Denny's and Bob Evans are more known for breakfast food. Many of these so-called burger restaurants have a full menu. Categorizing by what foods a restaurant serves is a purely subjective decision.- Gilliam (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So simply update the articles to drop the cat. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have gone through the list and I think I removed most of the articles that do not belong. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The category needs constant vigilance to limit it to restaurants that specialize in burgers or are known for it (e.g. Fuddruckers, Red Robin), but it seems to me to be a valid restaurant type such as steakhouses or Chinese restaurants. Amaryllis25 ^{"Talk to me"} 16:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose valid restaurant type, but will require vigilance, as many restaurants which are not burger joints also serve burgers. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom; the category is a POV mess, which states: "Restaurants that primarily serve hamburgers. Having hamburgers on a menu is not a criteria for being in this category." So you don't even need hamburgers on the menu to belong in the cat? hmmm. As for "primarily serve", are their statistics to show reliably that each and every categorant does sell more hamburgers than non-hamburgers by either number of units or by receipts. I'd doubt that for some of the entries here - Hard Rock Cafe probably sells nearly 50% of its revenue in alcohol and souvenirs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded the intro again. Does this help? If not feel free to try and clarify it more. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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