< July 9	July 11 >

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. POV concerns are important, and we don't generally categorize people by opinion. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 to Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The phrase "official account of 9/11" is nebulous. On the other hand, 9/11 conspiracy theories are a NPOV and accurate description of the miscellaneous "challenges" to the widely accepted views on 9/11. Thus, people who subscribe to such theories can be properly referred to as "conspiracy theorists". Beit Or 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename and suggest deleting - First off, what "official account" of 9/11 is it that these individuals are challenging? I wasn't aware that there was one single "official account." There are a number of reports issued by various national and international bodies; how many of those must one question, and to what extent, to be categorized as a "challenger" of "the official account," and is challenging "the official account" of 9/11 the sort of defining characteristic that warrants a category? The term "conspiracy theorist" has a strong negative connotation and may raise WP:BLP concerns if placed on a biography. Otto4711 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - a number of people appear to have been placed in this category on the basis of their having signed the 9/11 Truth Statement. If this is the extent of their involvement in "challenging the official account of 9/11" then they do not belong in this category in the first place and they absolutely would not be properly categorized as "conspiracy theorists." Otto4711 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I'm not certain about "conspiracy theorists," but the current title is ridiculous, and palpably POV. From "individuals" to "challenging" to "official account,"the implication is that this is a very brave speaking of "truth to power."Proabivouac 22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nominator and Proabivouac... Ranma9617 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious POV category. I know this is a renaming proposal, but the category really should be deleted. If not, renane,--Sefringle^Talk 03:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a people by opinion category, it also has other problems as noted above as outlined by Otto. It is also non-defining and suffers from vagueness and therefore subjectivity: how much "challenge" of how much of "official account" gets one included here? Carlossuarez46 17:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed name, which is POV. Dominictimms 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed name Big time. That is classic POV. I think that challenging an official account can be on any number of issues, some really trivial but important to the individual. In that case calling them a "conspiracy theorist" on the same level as those "This is what really happened"-fanatics is questionable. Bulldog123 16:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. If kept, it should certainly change name as per nom, because "official account" is meaningless phrase (whose official account? official in what sense? it could mean anything from al-Qaeda's official account, to the Manhattan Port Authority official account, to simply the account published in most newspaper. There is no "official" account!) BobFromBrockley 11:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename but do not rename per nom. The assertion that all individuals who in any way question the "official account" of 9/11 are, ipso facto, "conspiracy theorists" is nonsense (even if many of them are) -- so to claim that substituting that term would be "NPOV" is laughable.

I do agree, however, that the category needs to be more clearly defined, first in terms of what is meant by "official account", and second in terms of what constitutes "challenging" (or perhaps "questioning", if that term is thought preferable). I think for the vast majority of people, the term "official account" translates to "the official account of the 9/11 Commission", i.e. the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, better known as the 9/11 Commission Report. That could easily be spelled out at the top of the page. (It would also be a good idea to include the NIST report on the collapse of the Twin Towers as an addendum to the 9/11 Commission Report.)

As for who goes into the category -- to begin with, we are, of course, only talking about individuals who are already considered notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. I should think that anybody who has made a point of making it publicly known that they challenge or question any or all of the 9/11 Commission Report (or the NIST report) would qualify. Clearly, the signers of the so-called "9/11 Truth Statement" feel that it is important to be identified as challenging or questioning the "official account". So regardless of what any of us here may think about it, they want that fact to be known, i.e. they wish to be publicly associated with the issue.

Therefore, I don't think it is Wikipedia's proper role to "make the issue go away" by deleting this category. Wikipedia is supposed to enlarge and expand our knowledge of the world, not to shrink and diminish what we know. Cgingold 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's lovely. I was still working on my comments when Radiant closed the discussion. Six minutes! Obviously, I disagree with the decision, and the reasoning behind the decision. Cgingold 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - amazing film, but the category is small and unlikely to expand. Otto4711 17:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as amazing as Lynch's film is, it doesn't need the cat. One of the articles in it is up for AFD anyway (likely to be merged into the main article).
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. The material does not warrant a category. Otto4711 17:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge cat. Text copied to the talk page of the relevant article. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article, not a category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and, if needed, the long description to the article History of the Episcopal Church which covers the same ground more fully. This strikes me as a possible POV fork. Johnbod 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge text into History of the Episcopal Church and delete - All of the articles in the category are already in better categories, so this category could just be deleted. The text looks like it might be useful in History of the Episcopal Church, so I suggest possibly shifting it to Talk:History of the Episcopal Church and letting editors who work on the history article decide on what to do with it. Dr. Submillimeter 08:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. If deletion is desired, I suggest a new nomination for that purpose. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dancing on Ice to Category:Dancing on Ice participants

Nominator's rationale: Rename - everything in the category except the show article is for participants. Otto4711 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as performer by performance category. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I note that we treat reality television different from scripted television. The performer by performance categories were deleted in large measure because of the clutter generated by the number of categories that a prolific guest star could end up in. In this instance, everyone categorized here can and probably will end up in a general "participants in reality television" category. By deleting this category, we would be going in opposition to the way that such categories are treated elsewhere, would not reduce the number of categories on the articles and would be moving articles from a specific to a general category. Otto4711 19:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, does not fall under the blanket of WP:OC... Ranma9617 01:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. "A category of major crimes short of murder committed by children" (as this was intended) is impractical because of unclear definitions of "major" and "children", as well as the awkward category name. Furthermore, I note that we have articles on neither child crime nor child criminal; I'd suggest starting there, citing from those thousands of scholarly books. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as trivial intersection, or least Rename to Category:Child criminals. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia per nom and because the legal definition of "child" or "minor" for puroposes of criminal prosecution varies from one jurisdiction to another and in some cases even within jurisdiction depending on the crime. Otto4711 17:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I actually created this article. I do think it should be renamed, however not deleted. My intentional was a category of major crimes short of murder committed by children. I do see what you mean by that it could become trivial. Please post to my userpage with ideas, etc.

thanks, Jmm6f488 12:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Child criminals There is nothing "trivial" about child crime. The number of scholarly books devoted to the subject is probably in the thousands. Nathanian 16:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as both non-defining and performer by performance. No objection to a list article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, more like performee by performance, too. :-) Carlossuarez46 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or Delete per nom. Johnbod 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the songs are already listed in the concert sub-articles. --musicpvm 17:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before this spirals out of control and we have Category:Songs performed at the Reading Festival, Category:Songs performed at Live Aid and Category:Songs performed at Z-list celebrity weddings. Lugnuts 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as recreation of deleted content, or at least Rename to Category:Teenagers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; birth years are the subject of a very comprehensive category scheme, if you want to keep track of teenagers: consult Category:1987 births through Category:1994 births for a more complete possible collection, there'll be a little too many on the edges (those born in 1987 on or before today's date are now 20 and not teens, and those born in 1994 after today's date are only 12 and not yet teens, and sadly a few have died) but much better than adding all teenagers to this category and then maintaining it. Carlossuarez46 16:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per carlos - too much of a moving target. Johnbod 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best arbitrary inclusion criteria, better named Category:Adolescent. (Tween anyone?) 132.205.44.5 00:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreation. Bulldog123 16:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. If they defy genre, they defy categorization. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Jazz albums that defy genre to Category:Jazz albums

Nominator's rationale: If the article doesn't fit into a sub-genre of jazz (which itself could be subject to debate), then simply leave it in Category:Jazz albums. If it is completely uncategorizable, then why file it under jazz at all? Gyrofrog (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, well put. Carlossuarez46 16:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Postlebury 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. BobFromBrockley 11:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to "chronicles". >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical texts of Hungary to Category:Hungarian history books

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The new name would match the parent category (Category:European history books). Dr. Submillimeter 16:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose nom - these should clearly be Renamed Category:Hungarian chronicles as a sub-cat of Category:Chronicles where they belong, as all are medieval chronicles, with the exception of the 20th century political autobiography A Life for Hungary, which should be removed. None belong in Category history books at all. ~~Fewer, better researched, nominations from the Dr would be appreciated.~~ Johnbod 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Someone placed this in Category:European history books, so I thought they were meant to be categorized as history books. I also did not realize that a separate category existed for chronicles. Dr. Submillimeter 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Hungarian chronicles per Johnbod minus the last sentence. Carlossuarez46 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Hungarian chronicles The original proposal was not appropriate at all. Baridiah 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The only thing left to merge to any other cat is Cowry. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Part of this category is redundant with Category:Currencies by time and other subcategories of Category:Currency. The other things in this category are two subcategories for gold and precious metals and the article on Cowry. It therefore does not look particularly useful at this time. If it were expanded to include anything that was ever a trade item, it could include goat, cow, horse, slave, bead, salt, spice, and much of the rest of Wikipedia. It is probably a bad idea and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge carefully to the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Currency. Johnbod 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 by nom. Andrew c ^[talk] 02:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Nominator's rationale:' Delete - Content contributed by users is usually not categorized by the users. Therefore, this category should be deleted. (I left a note on the user's talk page but received no response.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is deletionism run amok. The good Dr. has failed to identify any Wikipedia policy that has been violated by this category, nor any policy that justifies its deletion. Other users have galleries of maps and other self-made files, and such categories exist in Commons. The category and its subcategories help group the not-insubstantial number of maps created by me, and I fail to see any way in which it is detrimental to this project to group them in this manner. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This appears to violate WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Generally, personal content does not belong in category space, especially in the category system for articles. This category is incorporated into the system for articles, as it is in Category:History maps. A gallery on a user page, however, would be appropriate. Could Briangotts point to examples of categories in Wikipedia that sort images according to the person who uploaded them? (I did place a message at User talk:Briangotts, but I never received a response.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:User-created images Johnbod 17:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless more tangible reasons are presented. The category appears to be harmless. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously this would not do for articles, but I think the many categories of this sort are ok for images. Johnbod 17:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawl of nomination - This category does appear to be in line with other user-related categories, although it should be removed from Category:History maps. Dr. Submillimeter 18:24, 10 July 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. I can see the point of merging, but I would suggest a new nom to discuss that. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical political movements of the United States to Category:Defunct American political movements

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" has many meanings. In this case, it could be interpreted as referring to very old political movements or political movements with some connection to history-related issues. However, it actually refers to political movements that no longer exist. I recommend using "defunct", which is much clearer than "historic" and which corresponds with the term generally used for categorizing organizations (see Category:Defunct organizations). I also recommend using "American political movements" to more closely match the category to the parent category (Category:American political movements). Dr. Submillimeter 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with parent Category:American political movements. Generally these are more significant than those in the parent, which has 8 articles, one with a notability tag and another which is Draft Eisenhower! Some probably have some life in them, even if the articles do not convey this - the Socialist Workers Party (United States) for one is still going. Judging when a political movement is "former" inevitably involves POV judgements. Johnbod 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Port Stephens to Category:Port Stephens Council

Nominator's rationale: Rename, This category is about the Port Stephens Council Local Government Area in Australia but it is incorrectly named after a major geographical feature, Port Stephens, which is a large coastal inlet within the Port Stephens Council LGA AussieLegend 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/rename as suggested. Postlebury is correct that this is factually wrong in some cases, but it is equally wrong by the present name. Hence the new name is better, but not perfect; new discussion may introduce yet a better name. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical capitals to Category:Former national capitals

Suggest renaming Category:Historical capitals of Armenia to Category:Former capitals of Armenia

Suggest renaming Category:Historical capitals of Bulgaria to Category:Former capitals of Bulgaria

Suggest renaming Category:Historical capitals of Serbia to Category:Former capitals of Serbia

Suggest renaming Category:Romanian historical capitals to Category:Former capitals of Romania

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The term "historical" could mean many things. For places, it could refer to something that is old, or something that has received a special government designation, or something that no longer exists. In these cases, "historical" is used to indicate that the places are no longer the capitals of countries. I suggest renaming these categories using "former", which more clearly indicates that the locations are no longer capitals. (Also note that the corresponding article was recently renamed to List of former national capitals with virtually no opposition to the move.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Some could do with a clear-out. What is Ston doing here? Johnbod 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The new names would be factually incorrect in several cases, eg some of the Romanian cities were capitals of predecessor states like Wallachia. Postlebury 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is a problem. However, how is the current name any better? The current name still implies that these cities were capitals of Armenia, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania. Also, is this a problem that would prevent the merger of the two parent categories? Dr. Submillimeter 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Postlebury. We might use a form along the lines of "Historical capitals of Foo and its predecessor states", but that might cause disputes about which states are true predecessors of Foo, so perhaps it's best to leave things as they are. Dominictimms 14:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Again, opposing this rename accomplishes nothing regarding the problem that some of these places were not the capitals of these countries but were instead the capitals of predecessor states. For example, Câmpulung still appears to be categorized as a former capital of Romania and not Wallachia regardless of whether the category is named "Romanian historical capitals" or "Former capitals of Romania". Removing the article from the Romania category would be more appropriate than opposing this rename. Dr. Submillimeter 16:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first, and rename the others as suggested unless better names are suggested. For the last four, the nominated targets are at least as good as the current names, and should be adopted if no problems are raised beyond Postlebury's. As for that problem, which is very important, I suppose Former capitals in Romania would be a bit vague, but how about something like Former national capitals in modern Romania? That's pretty wordy, and prehaps the fact that these sets of cities can not be in succinctly described is evidence that they are poor material for categories. Barring a better name being suggested, I agree with Dr. S., that removing the capitals of defunct states is the best solution. ×Meegs 07:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Meegs's solution may also be very useful for the subcategories in Category:Historical regions. Another part of the solution here may be to create more categories, such as Category:Former capitals of Wallachia, Category:Former capitals of Moldavia, etc., which could lie within these categories. Dr. Submillimeter 07:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be fine, but unless we adopt an inclusive title for the parent cats (e.g. "...in Romaina" or "...and its predecessor states"), it's better to keep the defunct states' cats as "see also" links rather than a subcats. Category transitivity, you know. ×Meegs 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - "See also" links would probably be better and less messy in the long term. Dr. Submillimeter 10:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: It only contains two articles and holds no real relvance nor significance. Tempest115 15:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It contains 77 articles, and is one of a parent with (guess what) 100 sub-cats. Johnbod 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure why the nominator says it only has two articles - there's many more than that. Besides, this is part of a larger scheme of dividing introductions by year, and in cases of a large subdivision scheme category size isn't relevant. So keep as part of that structure. Dugwiki 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki. See Category:1974 introductions, Category:1975 introductions, Category:1976 introductions, etc... Lugnuts 19:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per conventions of Category:20th century introductions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Postlebury 17:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to "classical". >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical Mesoamerican languages to Category:Extinct Mesoamerican languages

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" has many meanings and interpretations. In terms of languages, it could be used to refer to very old languages (such as Greek, Latin, and Chinese), or it could be used to refer to extinct languages. To avoid this ambiguity, I suggest renaming this category using "extinct" instead of "historical". Dr. Submillimeter 15:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nomchanged - see below Johnbod 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-propose: while extinct (or dead) Mesoam. languages is a valid categorisation in its own right, that was not quite the intention of this Historical Mesoam. languages cat. This category was intended more for those (pre-Columbian) Mesoamerican languages that are attested in the historical (ie, written) record, that is were written in some pre-Columbian Mesoamerican script and/or latin script (in the latter case shortly after the conquest, obviously). The languages currently (or potentially) in that category (leaving aside Proto-Mayan for the moment) are those whose preservation by some written record has been important to Mesoamerican studies, and represent antecedant stages of their modern (living) descendant languages/idioms. If 'historical' is thought to be ambiguous, then I would like to propose instead rename to Category:Classical Mesoamerican languages, following the meanings given in classical language and as per Category:Classical languages. A Category:Extinct Mesoamerican languages can also separately be set up, for languages (eg Chicomuceltec) with no living native speakers. Proto-Mayan may need a separate category. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Classical" seems better, but the description at classical language still seems vague. If the intent is to include pre-Columbian languages, would it be better to use Category:Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican languages? Dr. Submillimeter 08:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The definition at classical languages is not so much vague (though the Dr has his own standards for this) as over-demanding for these languages, requiring that "it must have a large and extremely rich body of ancient literature" which I suspect these can't really be said to have. I notice Chicomuceltec is only in category:extinct languages plus cats with living ones as well. Maybe there are enough non-classical extinct languages for two new sub-cats of "extinct languages", one classical one not. Currently there are sub-cats for North and "South America".Johnbod 16:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/responses: I don't think Category:Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican languages will work satisfactorily, many of those still around at the time of the conquest carried on through subsequent periods & still have their modern-day dialects; in any case there's Category:Indigenous languages of Mesoamerica. And while "large and extremely rich" can be subjective, I think these readily satisfy that criterion, and others. There are in excess of 10,000 Maya inscriptions known, and the Maya script is a fully-functional logosyllabic system documenting up to possibly 4 known regional lang. variants, including the prestige one(s) known as Classic Maya/Classic Ch'olan/Classic Ch'orti'. Classical Nahuatl has an extensive corpus of literature, mostly in a latin script but also associated with (rebus-style) readings of toponyms etc in pictorial/glyphic codices. Quiché and other that could be mentioned like Yucatec, Mixtec likewise have classic forms that are recorded in numerous contemporary documents. I note also that Maya, Nahuatl & Quiché already figure in the classical language article. There are a bunch of other Mesoamerican languages that are now considered dead/extinct, but which do not have a significant (or any) written record. So I'd still be in favour (if rename is required) that it be to Category:Classical Mesoamerican languages, per my counter-proposal.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Classical Mesoamerican languages as per CJJLW's counter proposal. Classic is the accepted use in the field - and the bodies of literature are certainly extensive enough to warrant such a label. Proto-Mayan shouldn't be in the cateory since it is a reconstructed proto-language and not an actual attested language. "Precolumbian languages" is a misnomer because most of the languages were spoken both before and after columbus. Extinct languages should be reserved for languages that have lost all their speakers such as Cicomuceltec not for languages who have gone on to become modern spoken languages, such as Classical Mayan and Classical Nahuatl.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Classical Mesoamerican languages (revised !vote) per Manaus and C Wright. Suggest still creating Category:Extinct Mesoamerican languages for Cicomuceltec and the like, with the structure: Classical MA >> Extinct MA >> Extinct Languages. Johnbod 13:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historic horses to Category:Famous horses

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The word "historic" has multiple meanings. For human beings and other animals, it could refer to someone or something that lived a very long time ago (100, 500, or 1000 years ago), or someone or something that is retired, or someone or something that is dead, or someone or something that was somehow "notable" or "famous". Given the vague, subjective nature of the term, I suggest merging these articles back into Category:Famous animals. (Also see the discussion from 17 Jun 2007 where Category:Historical cats was merged into Category:Famous cats).) Dr. Submillimeter 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Johnbod 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming and Oppose merge This category was specifically created because the horse article editors have been spending a lot of time getting all the individual horse articles OUT of the "famous horses" category due to the fact that it had ballooned out of control and had hundreds of articles listed. Much work has been done to get the famous horses page down to a mangeable listing of subcategories. I am open to a better name, but this is a place for the remaining horses who are deceased and have some significance without being either war horses or race horses (which make up the bulk of the historical articles). And with five or six entries, it is bigger than the subcategory show horses already. Noted the famous cats subcategories, it's smaller than the horse one. I have no particular attachment to the word "historic" but I do think that the category is needed, whatever it may be called. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is effectively an "other" category, which is not really an acceptable way to categorize articles on Wikipedia. Moreover, these horses, which range from Caligula's pet horse (Incitatus) to performing horses (Clever Hans) to horses used in medicine (The horse named Jim), should not be grouped together just because they were neither warhorses nor racehorses. I suggest creating small categories for the various things that these horses did rather than heaping them all together in this one category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only 7, including a duplication of Incitatus (Category:Equine legislators anyone?) I suggest merging per nom to leave them in the main category. There aren't enough of them for Category:horses famous for doing sums etc. This is indeed an "other" category. Johnbod 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There shouldn't be specific categories for these horses, because cats that only a handful of users are aware of only lead to confusion. The "Famous horses" category was trimmed down because it was unmanageable and because almost all horses were already in at least one subcategory. I agree that "Historic horses" is only an "other" category and thus not helpful. Since there will only be 10 horses in the FH category after a merge, this seems to be the best solution. Further subcats could be created if there are at least 2 horses for them. Malc82 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, based on the discussion, I can live with that. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Nathanian 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - absent the articles on their projects (which is a workaround the consensus against person by project categorization) the category is not needed for the remaining material. Nominated once previously and kept largely on the notion that it was useful for categorizing their works, which since we generally now don't do that seems not really to hold up as a reason. Otto4711 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:CCC the tide I think has shifted away from keeping these. Carlossuarez46 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Speedy, plural. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Film about Michael Moore to Category:Films about Michael Moore

Nominator's rationale: Rename to the proper plural. Normally I would take this to speedy but given the general antipathy lately to "films about..." categories I thought people might want it deleted instead. Otto4711 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 17:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Dominictimms 14:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, except for Duke Ellington. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of these categories consists of one or more of the following subcats: albums; members; songs, along with the article for the artist and an occasional discography article. Per the standard articulated in looking at bands beginning with A and artists beginning with W, along with many additional individual CFDs for eponymous musician categories, this is insufficient material to warrant the eponymous category. The material is accessible through the artists' articles and is categorized in other "...by artist" category structures. In one instance, for Europe, there is a DVD subcat and Duke Ellington has a compositions subcat. I don't believe these additional subcats warrant the eponymous category either as we have existing category structures for music video and DVD releases and compositions by composer but since these deviate slightly from the standard I wanted to note it. Otto4711 14:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's certainly no need for the Einstürzende Neubauten cat. Don't know about the others, but I guess they follow a similar trend. Infact, why do we even have the debate on these eponymous band/person cats? Lugnuts 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just putting in my perfunctory word on behalf of the Duke Ellington category, which I created. I (and probably many other readers) frequently browse Wikipedia via categories and having the eponymous categories makes this significantly easier, and makes more sense than having the albums, songs, members etc. categories just sort of dangling out there without a common connection to their subject. Also, the Duke Ellington category includes the subcategory Category:Compositions by Billy Strayhorn (which Otto4711 previously deleted without comment), since Strayhorn co-composed a large portion of his works in collaboration with Ellington and practically all of them were written for Ellington's band and are strongly associated with him. The Duke Ellington category also includes the Broadway revue Sophisticated Ladies. I am working on a subcategory for the numerous albums recorded by other performers that consist entirely of performances of Ellington's compositions. These elements are exceptional and set the Duke Ellington category apart from the other categories under consideration. InnocuousPseudonym 21:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Strayhorn subcat contains no information explaining any connection to Ellington and regardless is at least two steps removed from Ellington. Sophisticated Ladies was added to the category by InnocuousPseudonym after the nomination and, since it's a variation on person by project, may not be appropriate under current consensus anyway. Otto4711 21:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added brief explanatory text to the Strayhorn category (taken from the beginning of the Billy Strayhorn article), for what it's worth. Strayhorn wrote many of the pieces most strongly identified with Duke Ellington's band, including its theme song, "Take the "A" Train"; they were written to be performed by Duke Ellington and his band, and are often casually misattributed to Ellington himself. The Strayhorn article contains further details. Also, if it is concluded that Category:Compositions by Billy Strayhorn doesn't belong in Category:Duke Ellington and is removed, then the article on "Take the "A" Train" unequivocally does belong in Category:Duke Ellington, because the piece is strongly identified with him and his band but was not actually composed by him and therefore can't go in either Category:Compositions by Duke Ellington or Category:Songs with music by Duke Ellington. Which would be an additional reason not to delete the Duke Ellington category. InnocuousPseudonym 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, songs pergormed by Duke Ellington should be located in Category:Duke Ellington songs and parented in Category:Songs by artist. Otto4711 00:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellington and his band did not primarily perform "songs", they performed compositions for band - a relatively small proportion of which were arrangements of popular songs. The bulk of these were composed by Ellington and Strayhorn for Ellington's band and were subsequently performed and recorded by many other musicians and ensembles, which is why the present subcategories focus on Ellington and Strayhorn in their composing role rather than their performing role. Furthermore, setting aside the song/composition issue, I know of no other case in which a musician known as both a composer and a performer has had overlapping "Songs by artist" and "Songs by composer" categories. InnocuousPseudonym 02:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that there is some useful distinction between "song" and "composition for band" strikes me as quite odd. Are there sources which establish that "compositions for bands" are not "songs"? Is there third-party research which indicates that a "composition for band" is commonly understood to be something other than a "song" or that an "arrangement" of a song is not a "song"? Would anyone out on the town dancing to Duke Ellington and his orchestra comment to her escort, "what a lovely composition for band!" or would she instead comment on the lovely "song"? As far as overlaps between songs by composer and songs by artist, there are any number of people in Category:Singer-songwriters who, if someone were struck with the notion, could have their song articles on Wikipedia be in both a songs by artist category and a songs by composer category and I'd be willing to bet that there are other big band and orchestra leaders with song articles on Wikipedia who could have both songs by artist and songs by composer categories. Ellington is hardly unique in being a composer who performs his own compositions or an arranger who performs his own arrangements. Really not seeing what that has to do with whether the material in the category, in light of the standards which have been applied to other similar categories, warrants the category. Further, if Ellington did not in fact "compose" the material but instead "arranged" it, it should not be categorized as an Ellington "composition" at all. Consensus is against categorizing music arrangers by the people for whom they arranged and I imagine that categorizing songs based on who did arrangements of them, since songs can be arranged by any number of arrangers, would not go over big either. Otto4711 04:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how the last few posts are relevant to the issue at hand, but I will try to clarify my meaning here. Some of compositions in Category:Compositions by Duke Ellington are lengthy, multipart works. Black, Brown and Beige is well over an hour long; nobody has ever called it a song to my knowledge. None of the works in the category have any lyrics; that is the basis on which they are being distinguished from Ellington's songs. And none of the works in any of the Duke Ellington subcategories were merely arranged by him; they were all composed by Ellington or Strayhorn. InnocuousPseudonym 06:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Duke Ellington Ellington's category is both useful, and similar to other composers categories, such as Category:Composistions by Franz Schubert. I feel there is certain cultural snobbery occuring here, in that both composed works that gained (or lost) popular song status. The other cats for deletion contain little other than could be linked from an article page. Gareth E Kegg 09:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Duke Ellington and delete the others. While sometimes I find these kind of categories to be overkill, they are rather normal with others like Category:John Coltrane or Category:Miles Davis. The Coltrane and Davis categories are rather useless actually, but at least the Ellington one has articles relevant about him. It is my belief that people should not be placed in these categories, though. Which would make the Miles Davis and John Coltrane categories fail. (Mind meal 10:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Category:Duke Ellington as per rationale advanced by InnocuousPseudonym. Dermot 10:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ellington, delete the rest. The rest will be deleted after the similar nomination for "A" was closed as a delete. However, there seem to be enough arguments on Ellington to at least delay till that one gets a nomination later.--Mike Selinker 15:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Duke Ellington; Delete the remainder. The Ellington category performs a useful bracketing due to the broad compass of his work. AllyD 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any with more than one subcategory, being the best way to link such closely related categories. Postlebury 17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and deal with all of these individually, so that each gets the attention it deserves, and deletions that would not command consensus do not go through due to a lack of scrutiny. Dominictimms 14:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any with more than one subcategory, in agreement with Postlebury. Where it's a supercategory, it helps in navigation; otherwise, not really. There might be a new category for songs associated with Ellington, since Strayhorn was the actual composer of many and they do not therefore belong in Category:Compositions by Duke Ellington, but making this a subcategory of Category:Duke Ellington would make sense. -- BRG 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ministers of the Netherlands to Category:Government ministers of the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention to avoid confusion with ministers of religion. Perebourne 14:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 17:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Postlebury 17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the Ultimate Warrior category is eponymous overcategorization as well as being small with little potential for growth. The articles are interlinked (and should in one case probably be merged) and categorized elsewhere so this isn't needed. Assuming that the UW category is deleted then the "named after" category will be empty. Otto4711 13:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ample precedent on eponymous cats. Carlossuarez46 17:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical subdivisions of Scotland to Category:Former subdivisions of Scotland

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The word "historic" has multiple meanings. It could be used to indicate that something is old, or it could be used to indicate that something has been given a special government designation. In this case, the term is used for subdivision that no longer exist. The category should be renamed using "former", which more clearly indicates that the subdivisions no longer exist. (Also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 4#Category:Historic districts of Wales, where similar categories for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland were renamed.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a better term then subdivisions? When I first saw this I was thinking a housing development. Vegaswikian 00:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Maybe you have been living in Las Vegas (or somewhere else in the American West) too long :). The term "subdivisions" is open to discussion, although the parent category, which was recently nominated for merging, is Category:Former subdivisions of countries. Dr. Submillimeter 08:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I grew up with the term in New York and New Jersey (Levittown being the most famous). So it is not just an out west thing. I guess we both agree that the term is ambiguous. I was going to suggest using political subdivisions, but I'm not sure that would be a correct name in all cases. Vegaswikian 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: egrem. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Royal burghs to Category:Former royal burghs

Nominator's rationale: Merge - According to royal burgh, these locations no longer exist as government entitites. Therefore, these two categories are redundant. I recommend merging into Category:Former royal burghs, as the inclusion of the word "former" more explicitly indicates that these locations are no longer recognized as "royal burghs" and as the term "former royal burgh" is commonly used in many of the articles within this category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge to Category:Royal burghs as using the word "Former" implies that these articles have been separated out from current royal burghs. Perebourne 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one way or another, the same "former" discussion is happening at CFD for Former voivodeships of Lithuania; a quick non-scientific check indicated that there are examples of both the use or nonuse of "former". Standardization is probably in order, and I'd lean toward nonuse, but reasonable minds can differ. Carlossuarez46 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Look at Category:Divisions of Pakistan or Category:Domains of Japan, for example. It is unclear from these category titles that these divisions no longer exist as political units. I would therefore argue that this category needs the word "former". Dr. Submillimeter 17:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Royal burghs. As royal burgh explains and I can confirm, this term is not dead to the world. It remains in common usage, and has only lost the official aspect of its meaning, which is a small part of the whole meaning. Postlebury 17:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Royal burghs to correspond with popular usage and main article. AllyD 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Royal burghs, I don't recognise that they were abolished in the first place, a thousand years of civic life is not to be obliterated by a centralising ephemeral government, and the vast majority of the people that live in them don't either. Certainly, where I hail from, Haddington, would always refer to itself as a Royal Burgh than use "Former". Roxburgh, however, IS a "Former" Royal Burgh, in that it does not exist anymore, but its importance should gain its inclusion in the category. Furthermore the "city" as such did not exist in the English sense,(ie having a Cathedral) in Scotland- see Dornoch Cathedral etc. The council of Edinburgh still refers to the "Burgh of Edinburgh" in official charter documents, rather than "City of Edinburgh"Brendandh 20:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic counties of England to Category:Former counties of England

:Nominator's rationale: Rename - The word "historic" has multiple meanings. It could be used to indicate that something is old, or it could be used to indicate that something has been given a special government designation. In this case, the term is used for counties that no longer exist. The category should be renamed using "former", which more clearly indicates that the locations do not exist. Dr. Submillimeter 09:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I have found "historic counties" used in a few places for these counties now, so I am not certain that the name change is appropriate anymore. However, the term verges on being ambiguous. Dr. Submillimeter 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Suspended for now - see below. Johnbod 17:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we need some input from someone from the UK who understands all this. My understanding is that the historic counties are not just one set of names for former counties but the counties that existed over a very long stretch of historical time up to recently when reform became needed. I am neutral until some one explains this better than I can. --Bduke 00:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A (UK) Google search on "historic county" turns up the term being used more frequently to describe locations in the United States as "old" and "notable". However, I did find "historic county" used in some places (e.g. [1]). This website uses the term "ancient counties", which is also used on the web. However, after reviewing this, I still think that "former" would just be more clear cut, and it would match the parent category (Category:Former subdivisions of countries). Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bduke is correct, and "historic counties" is indeed a frequently used term for them - 201,000 ghits for the singular + England [2] and 68,000 ghits for "historic counties" + England. It is probably the most frequently used term, but not quite the standard one. Since there are only 300,000 ghits for "historic county" alone, the Dr's analysis above seems flawed, and I am suspending my !vote above for now. Johnbod 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep in view of the above, plus the fact that although they are no longer official administrative units, they still form the basis of many sports like cricket, and county shows and other aspects of life. So they cannot accurately be described as "former", which is also, unlike historic, not a term in common use. Johnbod 03:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 17:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountains of Middle-earth to Category:Middle-earth mountains
Category:Hills of Middle-earth to Category:Middle-earth hills
Category:Realms of Middle-earth to Category:Middle-earth realms

Nominator's rationale: Rename, See WT:Me Súrendil 09:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No strong objection, but I think that it would be better to keep these and rename the balance of Category:Middle-earth places to match instead. The X of Y construction is well established in corresponding real life categories such as those in Category:Categories by continent, Category:Categories by country, Category:Categories by region. ×Meegs 06:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, if M-e is considered a stand-in for the collection of related fiction by JRRT (as it often is) instead of a geographic label, then the proposal is in line with the majority of Category:Fictional locations, such as Category:Back to the Future locations, which are named for their source material. I still prefer matching the real life geography cats, though. ×Meegs 06:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about other M-e categories? There're Category:Middle-earth Elves, Category:Middle-earth theology, Category:Middle-earth music etc. Should fictional geography differ with this? Súrendil 07:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that music cat has far more serious problems, but other than that, yes, I think it would be better to rename them all "X of M-e" to match our real word "by location" categories. However, that is a big change, and not one that I'm going to push right now. As it is, I will not stand in the way of the proposed renaming, as it at least brings consistency within Category:Middle-earth. ×Meegs 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object, because all real-world categories use the syntax "mountains/hills of <foo>". >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you object moving these, then move Category:Middle-earth rivers and the rest of such names (there's 7 of them. choose) Súrendil 14:04, 18 July 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category with only one entry (the person) Neier 05:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Category:Keisuke Okada for the same reason. Neier 05:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. --MChew 03:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is an entire category devoted to a single middling-successful novel, with surprisingly devoted and industrious fans on Wikipedia. Right now, merges and redirects have more or less emptied it, cutting it down to the novel, the author, a related fictionalized guide written by the author, and a list of characters. Barring a sudden revelation of sources, this category won't ever be filling up any more than this. We can probably do without it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these should all be linked at the main article. Carlossuarez46 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary category. All related articles are already linked. This book has been on my watchlist forever, and I don't see any need for this category. Wryspy 00:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category is a mish-mash of performances and relations along with such articles as the hotel where he died, the drug cocktail that killed him and a band he liked. Everything is appropriately interlnked through his article and/or each other and the category is not needed. Otto4711 04:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy: WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Wryspy 05:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Almost everything in the category is improper performer by performance categorization and the one or two that aren't are appropriately linked to Richard Pryor. Category is not needed. Otto4711 04:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a performer by performance category. This is the most obvious category for most of the content to belong to. Postlebury 17:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Wryspy 05:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How almost all of the articles be "improper performer by performance categorization" when most of them are not about performers? Baridiah 01:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unless I'm missing something, this category includes mostly movies that Richard Pryor performed in, so the nomination makes sense. (I suppose a similar thing can be said about the album subcategory.) --GargoyleMT 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: can't think of a good meme joke here, unfortunately. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. The articles in the category (including some improper performer by performance items) are appropriately interlinked through Chuck Norris and each other and are categorized sufficiently. This category is not needed. Otto4711 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Wryspy 05:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Drew's article and Barrymore family (which itself was deemed sufficient to replace Category:Barrymore family) link the material without need of the category. Otto4711 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Wryspy 05:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-existent organization, as far as I can tell. There is no article for Daytona Pakistan or Daytona Pakistan Championship and pretty much no hits on Google ("Daytona Pakistan"). This appears to be either a fictional organization or part of an attempt to put hoax articles on Wikipedia. Mike Dillon 02:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There were previously a bunch of userspace "draft" articles in this category about seemingly fictional individuals (all under User:Wiki Florida 2007, which was blocked as a shared account). I removed all of the articles from the category by placing <nowiki> around the main-namespace categories on all of the "drafts". Mike Dillon 02:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: deletion is also a one-hit action. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:One-hit wonders
Category:One-hit wonder songs
Category:One-hit wonder artists
There is no specific definition for a "one-hit wonder", so these categories are automatically POV. Also, an artist may be a one-hit wonder in one country but may have several hits in another. This type of information is better presented through lists which already exist. (see List of one-hit wonders and country specific sub-lists like One-hit wonders in the United States, One-hit wonders in the UK , etc.) There lists include specific criteria for inclusion of artists/songs and references, which cannot be done with categories. --musicpvm 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or in one musical category and not another, or in one Top Some Number chart and not another, or.... --Mike Selinker 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The local nature of "one-hit wonders" makes this category unsuitable for organization. Dr. Submillimeter 08:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here lists are better because they can provide context, connect artist/song/date/location... Carlossuarez46 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dominictimms 14:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains Sean Connery's characters, spouses, children, and other articles (YTMND, SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy). The category has no specific criteria for inclusion, beyond a connection to Sean Connery. This seems like a case of overcategorization per the "Eponymous categories for people" section. --GargoyleMT 03:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as eponymous overcategorization per nom. Otto4711 03:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Otto. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Wryspy 05:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

Category:Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11

Category:Blue Velvet

Category:Ghost Whisperer

Category:Protestant Episcopal Church

Category:Dancing on Ice

Category:Child Criminals

Category:Songs Performed at Live Earth

Category:Teenager

Category:Jazz albums that defy genre

Category:Historical texts of Hungary

Category:Historical trading items

Category:Historical maps by User:Briangotts

Category:Historical political movements of the United States

Category:Port Stephens

Category:Historical capitals

Category:1973 introductions

Category:Historical Mesoamerican languages

Category:Historic horses

Category:Trey Parker and Matt Stone

Category:Film about Michael Moore

Eponymous musician categories - E

Category:Ministers of the Netherlands

Eponymous pro wrestler categories

Category:Historical subdivisions of Scotland

Category:Royal burghs

Category:Historic counties of England

Middle-earth moves

Category:Okada, Keisuke

Category:World War Z

Category:John Belushi

Category:Richard Pryor

Category:Chuck Norris

Category:Drew Barrymore

Category:Daytona Pakistan Champions

One-hit wonder categories

Category:Sean Connery