< February 24	February 26 >

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Alumni of the Collegiate School to Category:The Collegiate School alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:The Collegiate School alumni, convention of Category:People by educational institution in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:27, 25 February 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 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 or categories 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.--Wizardman 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC) There is only three articles in and spliting up converts seems to be very wrong also a similar category called Converts to Orthodox Judaism was deleted since Orthodox Jews are 11% of Jews and Shiites make up 11% of muslims it should be deleted--Java7837 23:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have List of converts to Islam; we don't need a category that has no way of referencing. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 27 February 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 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 or categories 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 merge Category:Oxford University alumni into Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support to match the parent. mattbr³⁰ 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and salt, because other3ise it'll be recreted soon by someone unfamiliar with the conventions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 27 February 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 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 or categories 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 speedily deleted per the below. David Kernow (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-capitalized. Now empty. Created recently by a relatively novice to place Google somewhere (there was just Category:Google). Category:Internet search engines does serve well. "Search engines" could be mechanical devices or self-directing automatons or perhaps astronomical tools and may have very little in common to keep this category. Pavel Vozenilek 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redundant attempt to serve the same purpose served by Category:Internet search engines. TonyTheTiger 23:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant category. Metamagician3000 23:38, 25 February 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 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 or categories 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 (no objections were expressed, and is in line with category's main article). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Culture (US band) albums, to match Culture (US band), see also Culture (band), Category:Culture albums. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:45, 25 February 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 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 or categories 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 Category:2000s TV Shows in India to Category:2000s TV shows in India. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-capitalized, and with only 2 entries probably over-categorization--note there doesn't seem to be anything along the lines of Category:1990s TV shows in India. 76.22.4.86 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:2000s TV shows in India. Note extensive categorization by decade of television series, e.g. Category:British television series by decade and its subcats, Category:American television series by decade and its subcats. There is no reason to delete this category because it's underpopulated as long as the TV series by decade scheme is in place for other countries. Otto4711 23:36, 26 February 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 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 or categories 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 Category:Michel Gondry music videos to Category:Music videos directed by Michel Gondry. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Music videos directed by Michel Gondry per other cats in Category:Music videos by director--82.39.105.140 22:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per anon-nom. It's a good convention. Postdlf 18:00, 2 March 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 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 or categories 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining, see also bald people, famous redheads. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, predicting WP:SNOW. Two nobodies, not Marx or someone actually notable. Pavel Vozenilek 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Trivial intersection.--Vbd | (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Metamagician3000 01:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dry shave per above. See also this discussion on deleting "List of bearded people". — Dale Arnett 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 06:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Categories with variations on this name (e.g. "People with facial hair") have not only been deleted in the past but also blocked. Dr. Submillimeter 09:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block. Craig.Scott 13:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block per Dr S and Crag.Scott. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial intersection. --Xdamr^talk 16:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely mutable and trivial thus non-defining. Hair today, gone tomorrow. Couldn't resist. ;-) Carlossuarez46 21:04, 27 February 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 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 or categories 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 merge Category:Bands from Dublin into Category:Irish musical groups. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Irish musical groups, single member category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Xdamr^talk 16:52, 27 February 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 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 or categories 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 speedily deleted by Centrx. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-capitalized and redundant with Category:2004 video games and 2004 in video gaming. 76.22.4.86 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As redundant, almost blatantly so. Also created by the editor who created the cat listed immediately below. — J Greb 06:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete redundant and inappropriately capitalized category. Doczilla 08:42, 27 February 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 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 or categories 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 speedily deleted, WP:CSD G5, by Centrx. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, mis-capitalized, and I believe prior consensus has held that 'XX film actors' and 'XX film cast members' are not accepted cats (see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/EJBanks). 76.22.4.86 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per points raised in the nomination. Plus even if consensus was ok with this type of cat, this would be a bit too vague anyway. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vague (and, as is typical of Creepy Crawler/EJBanks sockpuppets' categories) inappropriately capitalized category. Doczilla 06:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as noted in the edit summary just prior to the CfD nom, this is a recreation of a previously deleted cat by a suspected sock. — J Greb 06:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - A variant on this category name has been deleted before. Dr. Submillimeter 09:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who knew capitalization could be so difficult? SubSeven 09:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Empty, orphaned, mis-capitalised, vague, against actors-by-film consensus. --Xdamr^talk 16:57, 27 February 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 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 or categories 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 all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Politicians of the Dominican Republic to Category:Dominican Republic politicians

Propose renaming Category:Sportspeople of the Dominican Republic to Category:Dominican Republic sportspeople

Propose renaming Category:Writers of the Dominican Republic to Category:Dominican Republic writers

Propose renaming Category:Poets of the Dominican Republic to Category:Dominican Republic poets

Propose renaming Category:Athletes of the Dominican Republic to Category:Dominican Republic athletes

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to align with sibling categories in Category:Dominican Republic people by occupation. (Note that Dominican X can't be used because it is necessary to disambiguate between the two countries of Dominica and the Dominican Republic.) Greg Grahame 20:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mayumashu 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename all. Kolindigo 19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If this passes it might be good to do this with categories like category:Sportspeople from Bosnia and Herzegovina, category:Sportspeople of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and category:Sportspeople of the Republic of the Congo.--Mike Selinker 11:27, 27 February 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 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 or categories 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 No Consensus. I'd suggest moving the discussion to the talk page and seeing if the various editors can develop consensus for a new name. Consensus clearly is to rename. There is no consensus on the new name. Vegaswikian 07:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK transmitter sites to Category:Telecommunications towers in the United Kingdom

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to tie up with Category:Towers in the United Kingdom, with the lead article and with the general convention for categories of buildings and structures, and also to remove the abbreviation. Postlebury 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Transmitting stations in the United Kingdom": would reflect the titles of most of the articles. JonH 12:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Radio sites in the United Kingdom": would reflect the dual-use (broadcasting/telecommunications) nature of many of these places, and that there is a lot more to these places than mere antenna support structures, many of which are masts, not towers. Harumphy 12:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Telecommunications masts and towers in the United Kingdom, as "radio masts" is not clear, appearing to the uninitiated to be narrower in scope rather than broader. Craig.Scott 13:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I gave up my broadcast license many moons ago, this I can remember: A Tower or mast is neither a transmission site (necessarily-- that term would normally be the studio--not the building with a remote amplifier), nor a station (If that term even applies in the UK, 'station' and production studio are pretty much the same in the US). Most usually are located quite a few miles from the mast/tower, so submit the middle two proposals are worse than the current name. // FrankB 08:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per later more exacting name by User:Craig.Scott (prefered), or per the nom. // FrankB 08:14, 2 March 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 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 or categories 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 merge to existing Category:Ku Klux Klan members. It's been two weeks and nobody has explained how the semantic concerns are anything other than frivolous. "Members" categories are already generally understood to include members who have quit, died, or been kicked out of the organization. Surely a note on the category page will suffice. — CharlotteWebb 21:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: A request has been sent to Brad Patric, Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel, about this concern. If process allows, we'd like this relisted instead of closed until the Foundation can give feedback.

~~See table below~~ Rename Category:Ex-members of the Ku Klux Klan to Category:Ku Klux Klan defectors

or Merge Category:Ex-members of the Ku Klux Klan to Category:Ku Klux Klan members

~~See table below~~ Rename Category:Ku Klux Klan members to Category:Ku Klux Klan members, late, former and current

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Previous discussions: Merge discussion. If the "ex-members" this category is kept, I suggest renaming it to signify that it's for people who either left the Klan on unfavourable terms, or who left on good terms and later spoke out against it. Precedent: Category:Soviet defectors. What do you think? GunnarRene 19:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating to change the name of the main members category to address WP:BLP concerns raised in the previous merge discussion as a compromise.

To clarify: David Duke would probably not belong in the defectors category, while Johnny Lee Clary would. --GunnarRene 19:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ex-members, keep members (as nominator). See previous discussion. ~~--GunnarRene 20:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)~~ --GunnarRene 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge [ Category:Ex-members of the Ku Klux Klan ] with Category:Ku Klux Klan members, AFAIK that's the standard elsewhere in wikipedia. bogdan 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment untill commenter can review changes above. --GunnarRene 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree the renaming. That is against the logic of the categorization in Wikipedia. We use Category:Kings instead of Category:Kings, late, former and current. bogdan 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning in the CfD that just closed. Being a member of the KKK carries more baggage than being a member of some other sort of organization. Listing pepole that left the Klan in a category that implied that the person was still a member could open Wikipedia up to some sort of liability from Robert Byrd or some other person. This also kind of spills over into WP:BLP, which would obviously trump the usual categorization standard. As for the altenative rename, I find the names suggested to be rather cumbersome and not quite right for this topic. There are no "defectors" from the KKK, per se. That is Cold War language that is more applicable to the UUSR categories. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible to defect politically. Maybe as category of Klan defectors might be useful, but then it should actually include defectors, by some standard. Just becomming disinterested or leaving the Klan while still agreeing with them seems rather unworthy of getting its own category.--GunnarRene 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Klan member categories into Category:Ku Klux Klan members and note in the category description that the category is designed to capture anyone who was ever a member of the Klan regardless of the circumstances. This is ridiculous. We should not be making judgment calls as to whether sonmeone "defected" from the Klan or left on good terms or whatever else. No one should be added to the category without proper sourcing regardless of their current affiliation and the articles should make mention of the affiliation only if sourced. One category for all members regardless of status and be done with it. Otto4711 20:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge into Members. We record in these categories all members, no matter when membership occurred or how strongly it was disavowed. membership in cat:Soviet defectors does not preclude membership in cat:Soviet people. - NYC JD (make a motion) 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are also obliged to follow the guidelines in WP:BLP. I would be much less staunchly opposed to this rename if someone could assure me that it could not cause a legal stink to include categories in articles about disavowed KKK members that implies that they still have an affiliation with the group. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter is categorized as a submariner and presidential nominee though he is neither of those things anymore - yet he is still alive; is that wrong? And concerning "baggage": Leaving aside our (not unreasonable) POV that being a KKK member is negative, the article above would already have explained any disavowal or defection, and those who are browsing the category will be told that it includes all that were ever a member. So what's the problem? --GunnarRene 15:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those that have objected to the content of their articles have seem to not given a crap about the policy and guidelines that Wikipedia writes for itself. What I worry about is someone seeing that they are categorized in a manner that implies current membership, regardless of the caveats that appear if and only if the person clicks on the category. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is are two ways you can see this category: If you see the category placed on the article, then you will also see text explaining their afiliation, past or present, with the KKK, so there's no concern there. The other way is if you're browsing the category, in which case there will be text explaining that it includes every person with an article that was ever a member. So where's the BLP concern here? --GunnarRene 06:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People that aren't experienced Wikipedians, like you and I, might just browse an article. they may skip over the little black text and just see the big blue link at the bottom of the page. While I totally see where you are coming from about consistency, I also recognize that people are giving their Wikipedia articles greater scrutiny and becoming more litigious by the day. I'm trying ot head off another one of these stinks that come up from time to time and I am trying to keep some poor editor from being sued for implying that some individual is still in the KKK (at least in the eyes of the litigant). If that means a minor inconsistency with our usual categorization policy, then so be it. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, people who read Ku Klux Klan see David Duke and Robert Byrd with an emphasis of blue text and under-lining. Somebody who are inexperienced enough to be confused by the categories would be similarly confused by those links right? And it's not a given that such links appear in the text. In Opera (web browser) for example, I have a side-bar where all links in an article are listed.
I think we understand each others views pretty well. Would you agree to contacting Wikipedia's designated agent (Jimbo) and legal counsel to hear what they think? On the one hand, I don't think a lawsuit over this would have a snowball's chance in hell. On the other hand, it's Jimbo and the Foundation who would have to bear the brunt of any slashback. Back to the first hand - consistency is a virtue here: If, for example, a membership organization or company suddenly becomes the focal point of a scandal, there might be demands to create "ex-members" categories for those organizations. The KKK might sue us for treating them differently (very unlikely). But most of all, by consistently including all past and present members in people categories, and by only categorizing with attribution, there should be no problem. --GunnarRene 17:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. If we can get word from them that I am being overly sensitive, I would drop my objection. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(<- back to left) I sent an email to Brad. I asked him to respond here if he can.--GunnarRene 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into "Members". Definitely deserves a note at the top, though.--Mike Selinker 02:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Defection my black ass. KKK is no country it is a group of racist white people who think it is moral to lynch my people. It sould remain the same cause the people who left are ex-members not defectors. Its like calling an ex-Democrat a defecting Democrat. – BlackBrotherX7
Merge into Category:Ku Klux Klan members. As per other categories in wikipedia, we do not split by past and current membership. WP:BLP concerns should be addressed with a note in the category page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But does it adequately address WP:BLP concerns? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, for the simple reason that the category description does not show up in the article along with the category label (that and the fact that any category description would not specify who was only a past member). It would be like a newspaper claiming a front page story referring to "KKK member Robert Byrd" was corrected by its page 10 disclaimer that "member" can mean "former member." It's simply not reasonable to think that many people won't get the wrong idea from the category name, or that a non-specific disclaimer could correct what appears to be an obvious factual statement. Postdlf 18:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as far as I know the KKK is a secret organization; every so often one finds out who's a member, but how do we know some left it? Also the terminology of "defector" is POV. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 27 February 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 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 or categories 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 09:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is categorization by appearance in a published list, a form of overcategorization. The books in this list are also going to appear in other "best books" list as well, and many have also won multiple book awards. Moreover, inclusion in this list as well as other lists may be influenced by the subjective perspectives of the lists' authors. This type of categorization is not feasible, as it will lead to large, difficult-to-read category lists within the individual articles. Therefore, I advocate deletion. (See also the debates on Category:Big Read Books and Category:Big Read Authors and Category:Time Magazine 100 best novels.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Postlebury 19:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable and widely discussed list. Gamaliel 20:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The same problem as with avalanche of awards categories. The books are not notable because of being in some list. Pavel Vozenilek 21:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Published lists like this are considered a form of overcategorization.--Vbd | (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. bogdan 08:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a notable published list doesn't mean it's a good category. In fact, most such lists are better presented simply as list articles, if at all. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published list for discussion. Dugwiki 18:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with other literary list-bsed categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overcategorisation per Vbd. --Xdamr^talk 16:57, 27 February 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 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 or categories 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:Macau politicians. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Politicians from Macau to Category:Macanese politicians

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Adjectival forms should be used where they exist and are unambiguous. See List of adjectival forms of place names. Lesnail 18:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The term "Macanese" may be rather new to those who are interested in this topic. Pavel Vozenilek 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayumashu 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per convention at Category:Politicians of Asian nations. TonyTheTiger 23:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The general convention for sub-national units seems to be Foo Politicians, rather than Foovian Politicians. E.g. Category:American politicians by state which contains Category:New York politicians rather than Category:New Yorker politicians, or Category:Canadian politicians by province or territory, which contains Category:British Columbia politicians rather than Category:British Columbian politicians. So this one should be Category:Macau politicians. (Also, it should be reparented as Macau is not a nation). cab 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Macau politicians per cab. No need to use the obscure term "Macanese" when there is precedent for the non-adjectival form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per BrownHairedGirl. Obscure adjectives such as Macanese, Sammarinese, Monegasque, Motswanan, Burkinabe, Manx, Malagasy, etc, etc cause unnecessary confusion and are best avoided if possible. Given that the convention actually seems not to use adjectival forms, there is really no case to use them here.

Xdamr^talk 17:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Macau politicians, as the nominator had a good idea but was unfamiliar with previous convention. — coel acan — 21:40, 3 March 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 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 or categories 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 and repopulate Category:Politicians by country. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Politicians by country to Category:Politicians by continent

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Africa and Asia are not countries. Categories such as Category:Pakistani politicians is categorized in Category:Politicians of Asian nations, not in this category. Lesnail 18:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and repopulate with the by-country categories. There are hundreds of sets of by-country categories. This is one of the most important of the 155 subcategories of Category:People by occupation and nationality. No continent is a political entity, so it is the by-continent categories that should be up for deletion. Postlebury 19:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and repopulate as per User:Postlebury Mayumashu 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Repopulate as per User:Postlebury. TonyTheTiger 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Repopulate as per User:Postlebury. Craig.Scott 13:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Repopulate per Postlebury, people and buildings by country, plants and animals by geography. I always have to look up places like Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, or Tajikistan. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and repopulate by country As above, by country is the way to go here. The continent-specific categories should probably be considered for deletion. Dugwiki 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and repopulate by country per others above. Politicians operate within the political environment of a partcular country. The politicians-by-continent categories should be deleted, per Postlebury. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 27 February 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 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 or categories 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 no consensus. — CharlotteWebb 22:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quebec record labels to Category:Canadian record labels

Merge, Merge upwards, as per a previous CfM/CfD for Washington DC record labels [1]. Lugnuts 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lugnuts. GreenJoe 17:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quebec has a unique culture and the Quebequois see themselves as an independent nation. In this case I think it's appropriate to keep the cat. - Crockspot 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt the people of Washington DC have a "unique culture" and see themselves to be independent too... Lugnuts 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No doubt DC people have just avoided independence by less than 1% in an independence referendum. 70.55.84.248 06:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to French Canadian record labels. You should note that the Canadian entertainment industry is bifurcated into Quebec (invariably French) successful companies and moribund English Canada companies. IT's a real distinction in the Canadian industry. 70.55.84.248 06:54, 1 March 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 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 or categories 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 merge Category:Public Colleges and Universities in Mississippi into Category:Universities and colleges in Mississippi. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Universities and colleges in Mississippi, as non-defining, and covered by ((Public Colleges and Universities in Mississippi)) -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Might make a good navigation template. Vegaswikian 20:56, 25 February 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 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 or categories 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' Category:Waterfalls of Korea to Category:Waterfalls of South Korea. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Other 'Waterfalls of..' categories are nation states. This needs a re-name to Waterfalls of South Korea which covers all the current entries. JBellis 16:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom // FrankB 07:59, 2 March 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 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 or categories 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 category was apparently deleted/renamed already.--Wizardman 02:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:WikiProject Children's literature articles, to match the usual WikiProject conventions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:26, 25 February 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 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 or categories 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 No consenus: the whole tree of Category:World War II killed in action should be considered together either for deletion or name standardisation. Tim! 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:German military personnel killed in World War Two to Category:German military personnel killed in World War II

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per naming conventions for World War II categories. GregorB 14:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this looks like pretty useless everyone-here list. Just picking few names: cause of the death of Franz von Werra is unknown, dtto for Prien and Erwin König is a fictional person. IMO just another example of overcategorisation. Pavel Vozenilek 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overcategorization. "German people of World War II" and some subcats are useful. - Darwinek 23:05, 25 February 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 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 or categories 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, How is controversy defined? Similar in some respects to the previously deleted category for Banned films. Lugnuts 13:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See subjective overcategorization guideline.--Vbd | (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_21#Category:Controversial_books

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_24#Category:Banned_books

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_26#Category:Controversial_films

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_24#Category:Censored_Singles

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_16#Category:Banned_films

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_24#Category:Banned_books

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_7#Category:Challenged_books

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_22#Category:Banned_films

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_13#Category:Banned_books -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Vbd. Wimstead 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per long line of precedent. --Xdamr^talk 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too vague and subjective. Metamagician3000 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it would eventually spawn subcategory "Controversial choices for the Controversial Songs category". SubSeven 09:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; too vague to be useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and on point past precedents. "Controversial" is an idiotically meaningless word. Postdlf 18:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If ever there was a word that can not stand without the dreaded opinion next to it, propping it up, that word would be "controversial". Carptrash 18:35, 2 March 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 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 or categories 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 merge Category:British Royal Consorts to Category:British royal consorts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Royal Consorts to Category:British royal consorts

Merge, Apparently, British Royal Consorts was renamed to British royal consorts in early December. Soon after that, User:Tasoskessaris recreated British Royal Consorts. So now we have both categories. And the contents in each are substantially the same. I have no opinion as to whether it's capitalized or not. I am just asking for community opinion as obviously, having 2 categories with virtually the same name and contents is a bit silly. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deleted one of these at one point as a speedy due to there being two of the same thing. Viridae ^Talk 11:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I apologise profusely for not having noticed - after all, I nominated the named changes and said I'd sort it out. So yes, merge please D B D 15:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename the result to Category:British consorts royal which is I believe the correct terminology. Otto4711 15:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you believe wrongly - it's "queens consort", "princes consort" and "royal consorts" D B D 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I apologise for the intrusion, but I got into this debate from a rather unexpected angle. To clarify please follow this edit and its links. BTW Otto4711's merge suggestion does possess a certain elegance. However as I am not an expert on this particular field, please consider my comments as just that. Thanks to Woohookitty for the gracious invitation to this debate. Dr.K. 16:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I do intend to take a rather long vacation from redlined categories, pre-populated or not ;). Dr.K. 16:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and keep as a redirect. The alternative proposal is inelegant and gets no google hits at all. Wimstead 16:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British royal consorts. But you know, if someone can find out what the official term is, we can go with that too. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:31, 25 February 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 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 or categories 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 15:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is categorization by appearance in a published list, a form of overcategorization. The books in this list are also going to appear in other "best books" list as well, and many have also won multiple book awards. Moreover, inclusion in this list as well as other lists may be subject to the subjective perspectives of the lists' authors. This type of categorization is not feasible, as it will lead to large, difficult-to-read category lists within the individual articles. Therefore, I advocate deletion. (See also the debate on Category:Big Read Books and Category:Big Read Authors.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcategorization. bogdan 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See specific section of Overcategorization guideline.--Vbd | (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with Dr. Submillimeter. --DrGaellon | Talk 14:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete U.S. centric list. Wimstead 16:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The same reasoning as with a CfD above. They should be merged or put one after another. Pavel Vozenilek 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as overcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcat per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcat per nom. --Stormie 23:00, 27 February 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 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 or categories 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 09:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope is impossibly large, anything from Against the Day to Nine Inch Nails. Every community with a forum might as well install a wiki too, these days. Unint 08:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insane idea for a category, no way to maintain it. SubSeven 09:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Danged if I can even see an association to the cat name with most things! // FrankB 08:02, 2 March 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 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 or categories 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 09:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IWW to Category:Industrial Workers of the World - Darwinek 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 06:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the number of links to the category shows that it works and (opinion) the initials IWW are better known than the International Wobblies of the Whatever, or something. Carptrash 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Rename. National Hockey League is also better known as NHL but it was renamed months ago, along with tons of other similar categories. It was discussed many times that abbreviations ain't good for categories. - Darwinek 09:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename People can tell what sort of thing "Industrial Workers of the World" is even if they have never heard of it. The same does not apply to "IWW". Wimstead 16:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have somewhat mixed feelings. Carptrash is correct, IWW is very well known, and the abbreviation has been in use since the founding convention in 1905. I'm also somewhat concerned that long category names on some pages help to make the size of the category section overwhelming. — By the way, the link on the IWW category page template no longer points to this voting section, since the move from speedy. Don't know if that's a concern. — I'm also wondering, is it appropriate for the person nominating the change to vote? Seems that's sort of like voting twice. Richard Myers 10:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Richard Myers: It's not a vote, so it doesn't matter. Some nominators prefer to bold their suggestion so it's very clear, others don't. The closing admin will weigh it properly regardless. — coel acan — 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "IWW" isn't well known where I live. Craig.Scott 13:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. As an aside, about the only abbreviated categories I know of that survived the renaming process are the following:
- Category:ACB league and Category:LEB league (and their subcats), only because the initialisms are Spanish-based (these are Spanish basketball leagues).
- Category:UEFA, Category:CONCACAF, Category:CONMEBOL, and Category:FIFA; all these football (soccer) bodies are almost exclusively known by their initialisms, and the latter two are non-English initialisms (Spanish/Portuguese and French respectively).
- Category:ISO, which I'm surprised didn't get renamed to "International Organization for Standardization".
- Category:NASCAR and its related subcats; this auto racing series is universally referred to by sports media in the U.S. by this acronym. (added later)

Although "IWW" is reasonably well-known, I don't think it rises to the level of the exceptions I just outlined. — Dale Arnett 07:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename It is usually a mistake to second-guess what people know. I count myself as fairly well informed etc but I have never heard of this organisation. Of course the fact that I'm not from the US probably has something to do with it...

Xdamr^talk 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename There are very few cases where using an abbreviation is justified, and this certainly isn't one of them. CalJW 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Darwinek and CalJW. --Vbd (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename in keeping with the usual policy on acronyms and initialisms. IWW is very well known as IWW, but people also know Industrial Workers of the World. And lots of people know the IWW as the Wobblies. But we should do the standard official name here. --lquilter 18:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Despite its name this seems to be a rather small American union, perhaps named on the same basis as baseball's "World" Series. AshbyJnr 20:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an "American" union in the sense that other "International" unions are often U.S. (or U.S. plus Canadian) unions. Although the IWW was first formed in Chicago, it is an international union in the true sense, with current, functioning branches in Australia, Scotland, Canada, Finland, England, the U.S., and possibly several other countries. Total membership was estimated by the U.S. government in 1917 at 300,000, although it is probably nearer to 2,000 total membership at present. Richard Myers 18:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Lquilter has this right. Everyone who knows IWW knows it means Industrial Workers of the World, but not everyone knows IWW. Expanding the name is friendlier to more users. — coel acan — 21:45, 3 March 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 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 or categories 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 no consensus Tim! 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cabinet of the Netherlands to Category:Cabinets of the Netherlands A ecis^Brievenbus 10:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This category is about an institution, and is not just a collection of articles about particular cabinets. ReeseM 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agree per nom. 'Cabinet of the Netherlands' would indeed have articles on the function and structure of the cabinet. Unfortunately, these article are not that. They are on the personnel composition of various named cabinets. As such, 'Cabinets of the Netherlands' is indeed the appropriate name for these articles. The current category (name) would still be used were there any such function/structure articles to place into it. Hmains 17:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This category follows the most common form for this type of category. Incompleteness is a reason for writing more articles, not for renaming. Haddiscoe 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree That's because all the other subcats of Category:National cabinets are named incorrectly as well. The category is a collection of multiple cabinets and as such the category should be named after the plural form. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per TheDJ: the articles here are about cabinets, not just about the cabinet as an institution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Contrary to the implication of BrownHairedGirl's comment, Category:Cabinet of the Netherlands encompasses category:Cabinets of the Netherlands, not the other way round. CalJW 00:22, 28 February 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 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 or categories 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:Nordic Cross flags.--Wizardman 02:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Category:Nordic Cross Flags to Category:Nordic Cross flags Haddiscoe 14:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 06:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Category:Nordic cross flags and rename the main article accordingly. The two capitalisations seems to be used interchangeably within the article, and most other flag sources do not use the capital C, just as they do not talk about the Canadian Pale or Spanish Fess but the canadian pale and Spanish fess respectively. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 22 February 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 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 or categories 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 no consensus Tim! 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings with sculpture by Corrado Parducci to Category:Carrado Parducci buildings -- feb^talk 22:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 06:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, on three grounds: not eligible speedy, new name appears to be misleading, new name breaches the capitalisation policy. Haddiscoe 14:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with it? It doesn't conform to the y x guidelines above, per Category:Buildings_and_structures_by_architect, although I agree that Buildings should not be capitalized, so i'll fix that-- feb^talk 07:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it is not eligible for speedy there should be no further debate here. If you still want it renamed, you should move it to the main section, where I will press for deletion. Haddiscoe 12:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, what's wrong with it? See speedy critera #4, it's fine. -- feb^talk 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No it isn't, absolutely not. I am flummoxed that you can thing it is. Haddiscoe 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per the General naming conventions the new title seems to suggest that Parducci was the architect of the various buildings. I was/am more concerned with Choose category names that are able to stand alone, Carptrash 16:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then if he only did sculptures (which it doesn't sound like), it would be Corrado Parducci sculptures -- feb^talk 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all sure what you mean by (which it doesn't sound like) in your answer - do you know who Parducci is? What his claim to fame (or at least a page on wikipedia) consists of? Brief summary. He did sculpture on buildings. The sculptures (with very few exceptions) do not stand alone. They are virtually all connectd to some building. Hence the title of the category. Carptrash 03:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Buildings may contain multiple sculptures and other artwork. Categorization may become inane. This would work much better as a list, possibly within Corrado Parducci. Dr. Submillimeter 08:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the feeling that you folks still do not understand my point about who Parducci was, or what his genre was or what his legacy is. This is not about what the building contains, his sculpture is carved on the outside of buildings. Carptrash 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other buildings contain sculpture incorporated into the architecture as well, and I am sure that some buildings contain exterior sculptures created by multiple people. This still seems like an impractical categorization system. It would function much better as a list. Dr. Submillimeter 10:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's take a look at what this worst case scenario might look like. The Underground Railway Head Offices in St. James Park has architectural sculpture by Jacob Epstein, Eric Gill and Henry Moore. If one were inclined to do building categories for each of them, which I would NOT suggest because the numbers are so small, then at the bottom of the article about the building there would be three categories listed. It might (opinion) even suggest to someone that this is an interesting building, worth a second look. A more complex, and realistic example would be Rockefeller Center where Lee Lawrie, Leo Friedlander Rene Paul Chambellan and Carl Paul Jennewein might all have categories. Now it seems to me that it is excepted here that Category: Buildings by Frank Lloyd Wright is an okay category, leading me to conclude that any architect with a significant body of work (Category:Buildings and structures by architect) could also have a category, and if that were applied to Rockefeller Center there could be as many architects listed as sculptors. Just because the idea of treating sculptors the same as architects might be a new one please do not dismiss it out of hand. And remember, Corrado Parducci created sculpture on about 600 buildings. Carptrash 18:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Dr. S, categorizing buildings by artwork (which is impermanent in most cases) is a terrible categorization scheme. Otto4711 15:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As per I mentioned to Dr. S, his work is as perminanent as the buildings. Carptrash 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His work may be permanent, but in those cases where it isn't letting this category stand sets a poor precedent. Otto4711 19:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the cases where the sculpture is not attached to the building (there is a St. Benedict for example) the site would not be included in the category. Carptrash 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto4711. Wimstead 16:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there were separate articles for sculptures by this artist a category might be appropriate for them, but this is not such a category. Haddiscoe 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His sculpture ARE the buildings. More or less. Carptrash 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcat. If a building has artwork from multiple artists do we categorize it under them all. The Louvre would be overwhelmed with categories. Carlossuarez46 21:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that you have come up with a great argument for Category:Sculptors with work on the Louvre. Go for it and I will support you. Carptrash 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming and deletion. What's the fuss about, guys? it doesn't look like it's hurting anyone. Besides, a lot of buildings in Detroit seem to have been influenced by this gentleman's works... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming and deletion. The category is a worthwhile and valid. As a rule, I would argue the benefit of the doubt should go with keeping the category when so many of the users who want it deleted are unsure what exactly they are considering. As far as changing it to Category:Carrado Parducci buildings, that is just wrong since he was not the architect of the buildings. What Carlossuarez46 is saying- if it stays it may lead to an explosion of similar categories relating to any structure that has sculpture contained within it or on it- shows he doesn't understand the issue. This category is like a subset category of architecture. An analogy is having a famous cinematographer- for example Hiro Narita, that has worked on many famous films. Establishing a category for Category:Films with cinematography by Hiro Narita would be valid and useful in linking all the films he worked on. To say there may be other sculptures by other famous artists on the same buildings by Parducci (this seems rare but besides the point) does not make any difference. Maybe a great film had two cinematographers- who cares, it doesn’t mean you ignore the individual cinematographer or, in this case, sculptor. --Mikerussell 06:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify in Corrado Parducci as a table. Since this appears to be about sculpture, I would think that the year that the piece was made in or the subject of the sculpture would be more important then the building the houses the sculpture. By adding a table, the works could be sorted by year or subject or the building housing it. This is simply not a notable intersection for a category. Vegaswikian 07:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You folks are just not paying attention. The sculptures involved are not housed in the building, they are carved on the exterior of it. The year it was created will be the same as the year the building was completed. I'm thinking that we might have to use this table idea if the people voting continue to do so in such an obviously uninformed manner. Carptrash 08:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No Lists please. There are way too many lists on wikipedia, if anything they should be deleted. The categoty is less obtrusive- it sits at the bottom of an article and often articles do not have enough categories, so why start taking valid ones away. Generally, list pages tell almost nothing of the topic and presume a clearly understood topic, like List of NFL punters or Prime Ministers of the Congo etc. That being said, a list could be added to the Corrado Parducci article itself at the bottom, but that has little to do with keeping the category. --Mikerussell 15:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, would accept the name, but suggest Corrado Parducci sculptures as a compromise. The precedent is the Sistine Chapel lists the category Michelanglo paintings. This is a preservationist category for an very important artist, Corrado Parducci and an important period in the history of American architecture. He has hundreds of sculptures, that shows the need for a category. Architecture and sculpture are not overloaded with categories, and it is highly unlikely that any particular article within architecture, art, or sculpture would have any difficulty with numbers of categories. Perhaps a compromise name would satisfy some of the others, Buildings with Corrado Parducci sculpture, or simply "Corrado Parducci sculptures," (this would include sculptures that are independent of the building like those on fountains). Agree that 'Corrado Parducci buildings' is not quite accurate and might cause confusion. Thomas Paine1776 17:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can separate articles be written about the sculptures themselves? This would solve the problem. (When I write about supernovae in an article about a galaxy, I see no reason to add Category:Supernovae to the galaxy's article.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Well all of the buildings so far listed in this category already have articles about the building, or something close (as in an article about a school, in which the building housing the school might or might not be discussed). Have you looked to see how many there are already? It seems to me that writing an article about each of his more significent works would produce a lot more wikiclutter than this category. Anyway, a section could be added to the article discussing the sculpture, I've already done that in a few places, but my point is that by marking each building as being in this category attention is drawn to the large body of work that this relativly unknown and underappreciated (opinion) artist produced. it is also an easy way to navigate through his output forover half a century.

- Reply to Reply It seems the point of the requestor is that Corrado Parducci has hundreds of sculptures. A category is warranted. It makes sense ti resolve this by renaming the category Corrado Parducci sculptures just as the category Michelangos paintings under the Sistine Chapel. A reader may wish to know what are the other locations of the hundreds of Parducci sculptures. A suggested table in the Corrado Parducci article would not be practical since it could not hold the hundreds of sculptures. Therefore, a category named Corrado Parducci sculptures is justified, it could be used to locate any sculpture whether on a building, a fountain, etc. Thomas Paine1776 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If ThomasPaine1776 is suggesting the category Corrado Parducci sculptures as a renaming of the current category, and the buildings in the current category stays within the newly named category, and somebody doesn't come along and tries to say the building article itself should not be listed in the category, then I can support that. I agree the table in the article might get too grand but I think the article could get a little bigger and better listings of the sculptures. Like for instancem, just out of my curiosity, what on the UDM campus is his? But the category itself should remain. (forgot to sign---Mikerussell 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Well one could fairly easily expand the Parducci article, it has been a totally conscious decision to not do so. His U of D - which is how I remember UDM, and I think is what we are talking about - consists of at least a large, (over large in my opinion) cartouche over the main entrance to the library. There are pictures in the eekives somewhere, but not particularly good ones. Does this make sense? Some of this conversation might be best moved to His discussion page? Carptrash 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If those articles don't mention the sculptures, then those articles should not be listed in this category. The building should only be listed in a list. So unless the sculptures on each building are notable in and of themselves, most of the entries in the category should be removed. Vegaswikian 00:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what you are saying is that certain of the articles in the category don't belong there (those that don't mention Parducci's sculpture]] because if the sculpture in not mentioned then it's not noteworthy? Or to put it another way, if the articles in question DO mention the sculpture, then it is okay to have it in the category? Carptrash 01:34, 2 March 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 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 or categories 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 no consensus Tim! 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Best Drama Actor Golden Globe (film)

Category:Best Drama Actress Golden Globe (film)

Category:Best Drama Actress Golden Globe

Category:Best Drama Actor Golden Globe (television)

Category:Best Musical or Comedy Actor Golden Globe (television)

Category:Best Musical or Comedy Actress Golden Globe (television)

Category:Best Miniseries or Television Movie Actor Golden Globe

Category:Best Miniseries or Television Movie Actress Golden Globe

Category:Best Supporting Actress Golden Globe (film)

Category:Best Supporting Actor Golden Globe (film)

Category:Best Drama Picture Golden Globe

Category:Best Musical or Comedy Picture Golden Globe

Category:Best Musical or Comedy Picture Golden Globe winners

Category:Best Foreign Language Film Golden Globe

Category:Best Drama Series Golden Globe

Category:Best Musical or Comedy Series Golden Globe

Category:Best Miniseries or Television Movie Golden Globe

Delete -- The above categories are underpopulated and/or mis-populated. They duplicate, to varying degrees, existing (though inconsistently named) lists that are thorough and complete. See:

Golden Globe Award for Best Actor - Motion Picture Drama

Golden Globe Award for Best Actress - Motion Picture Drama

List of Golden Globe Awards: Television, Best Actress, Drama

List of Golden Globe Awards: Television, Best Actor, Drama

List of Golden Globe Awards: Television, Best Actor, Comedy or Musical

List of Golden Globe Awards: Television, Best Actress, Comedy/Musical

List of Golden Globe Awards: Mini-series, Best Actor

List of Golden Globe Awards: Mini-series, Best Actress

Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress - Motion Picture

Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor - Motion Picture

Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama

Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film

List of Golden Globe Awards: Television, Best Series, Drama

List of Golden Globe Awards: Television, Best Series, Musical/Comedy

List of Golden Globe Awards: Mini-series or Motion Picture Made for Television

This all strikes me as a great example of zealous overcategorisation.--Vbd | (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - The Golden Globes a a major award and categorizing by awards at this level is reasonable. Lists are not automatic substitutes for categories. That people are miscategorizing things or not populating them is an argument for cleanup and populating, not deletion. Otto4711 17:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I side with Otto on this one. Usually, as per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners, award winners should use lists and not categories. However there is an exception for extremely important, industry defining awards, since something being labelled with that award immediately tells the reader something quite important about the subject. My guess is that the Golden Globes therefore probably qualify as a reasonable exception to the general rule against award winner cats, so I'd be willing to give these the benefit of the doubt as being useful to the reader and keep them. Just my opinion. Dugwiki 18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Although this award is important, award information is better handled in lists than in categories. I therefore suggest deleting the categories. Dr. Submillimeter 11:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see the merits of both arguments, but I think that deciding what are industry-defining awards is really open to POV: Is Cannes industry-defining? Sundance? etc. What about any (or all) of those listed at List_of_movie_awards#Significant_Critics.27_awards or List_of_movie_awards#Significant_Festival_awards of which there are dozens? Too many to categorize as often one film, actor, director will win several of these. Listify, which has already in some cases been done. Carlossuarez46 21:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The Oscars is a defining award. So is the Emmy for television. The Golden Globe is not. Xiner (talk, email) 04:53, 1 March 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 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 or categories 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without prejudice). A cat for a single article seems like over-categorization at worst, premature at best. 76.22.4.86 04:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cast list for the show should already appear in the article, making this category redundant. There would be no reason for a reader to visit this category as opposed to using links to actors in the show's article. Dugwiki 18:36, 26 February 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 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 or categories 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 No consensus Tim! 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplicates cleaner, simpler list: Golden Globe Award for Best Director - Motion Picture. Overcategorization.--Vbd | (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - major career-defining award. Lists are not automatic substitutes for categories. Plus this category is completely cleaned up because I cleaned it last night. Otto4711 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Best Director Golden Globe winners. SubSeven 09:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the rename suggestion only because all of the other GG award categories are without the word "winners" in them and there's no reason to make this category the odd one out. Otto4711 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as with the other Golden Globe categories listed in the umbrella cfd above, the Golden Globes appear to be a reasonable highly well known and influential exception to the general rule at Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners. Dugwiki
Delete for my reasons in the umbrella nom. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Oscars is a defining award. So is the Emmy for television. But Golden Globe for motion picture? No. Xiner (talk, email) 04:13, 1 March 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 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 or categories 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 DELETE, recreation. Postdlf 08:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A joke of a category. Postlebury 03:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would seem that this category is rather subjective. Gobonobo 06:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course. Wimstead 16:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - A category with a similar name was deleted following this 8 Jan 2007 discussion. This is effectively the (unintentional) recreation of deleted content. Dr. Submillimeter 19:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I believe Gag name should have a category associated with it. As the creator of E. Normus Johnson, I believe there is some merit to such a category. TonyTheTiger 23:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an unencyclopedic, random category. Craig.Scott 13:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted cat; otherise delete per Craig.Scott. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 27 February 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 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 or categories 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 Category:Indian Comedy Shows to Category:Indian television comedy series. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian Comedy Shows to Category:Indian television comedy series

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in line with similar categories for other countries. Postlebury 01:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 18:17, 25 February 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 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 or categories 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 merge Category:Florida hardcore musical groups into Category:Florida musical groups (and Category:Hardcore punk groups), Category:Florida heavy metal musical groups into Category:Florida musical groups and Category:American heavy metal musical groups. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Florida musical groups, somehow I think American bands by genre by state is not a good idea. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems advisable, but whatever the outcome should probably also be applied to Category:Florida heavy metal musical groups. 76.22.4.86 22:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. Category:Florida heavy metal musical groups should merge to BOTH Category:Florida musical groups and category:American heavy metal musical groups. I've tagged it as such.--Mike Selinker 11:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parent categories per Mike Selinker. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 27 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 25

Category:Alumni of the Collegiate School

Category:Converts to Shi'a Islam

Category:Oxford University alumni

Category:Search Engines

Category:Culture Albums

Category:2000s TV Shows in India

Category:Michel Gondry music videos

Category:Famous bearded men

Category:Bands from Dublin

Category:2004 in Video Games

Category:Marvel Comics Film actors

Category:Politicians of the Dominican Republic

Category:Sportspeople of the Dominican Republic

Category:Writers of the Dominican Republic

Category:Poets of the Dominican Republic

Category:Athletes of the Dominican Republic

Category:UK transmitter sites

Ku Klux Klan members categories

Category:Modern Library 100 best novels

Category:Politicians from Macau

Category:Politicians by country

Category:Quebec record labels

Category:Public Colleges and Universities in Mississippi

Category:Waterfalls of Korea

Category:Children's and Young Adult Literature

Category:German military personnel killed in World War Two

Category:Controversial songs

Category:British Royal Consorts

Category:Time Magazine 100 best novels

Category:Products and services with dedicated Wiki communities

Category:IWW

Category:Cabinet of the Netherlands

Category:Nordic Cross Flags

Category:Buildings with sculpture by Corrado Parducci

Category: Best Drama Actor Golden Globe (film)

Category:Bones (TV series) characters

Category:Best Director Golden Globe

Category:List of People with Humorous Names

Category:Indian Comedy Shows

Category:Florida hardcore musical groups

Category:Florida heavy metal musical groups