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< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical Economies of Karnataka to Category:History of Karnataka and Category:Economy of Karnataka

Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category has a really weird name. It also contains only two articles, so it probably is not needed. Moreover, most other equivalent subdivisions of countries do not have "history of the economy" categories. I suggest merging these two articles into Category:History of Karnataka and Category:Economy of Karnataka. This merge is based on the assumption that the empires described in these articles should be categorized under the modern political subdivision, which may draw objections. If this category is kept, then a better name would be needed; Category:History of the economy of Karnataka might work. Dr. Submillimeter 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It is also worth pointing out that these look like they were supposed to be subpages of articles on these two empires. However, both the main articles on these empires and these pages contain very similar (if not identical) information. It might be worth merging the articles back together. Dr. Submillimeter 21:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Economic history of India Postlebury 17:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Economic history of India per Postlebury. Both articles are in Category:History of Karnataka via their respective empires, & are rather long ago for the modern economy category. Johnbod 00:04, 15 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< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Concept aircraft to Category:Cancelled aircraft projects

Nominator's rationale: Merge, appears to describe the same thing. GregorB 21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: More care should be taken to determine where articles are placed, but would there not be a need for true concept aircraft currently in the works, or does Category:Upcoming aircraft adequately fulfill this role? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Category:Upcoming aircraft essentially describes future aircraft. See also the description at Category:Concept aircraft; note also that it includes prototypes - while, in my view, once a prototype is built and flown, an aircraft ceases to be a concept aircraft. Category:Cancelled aircraft projects has a less ambiguous title, which is why I prefer it. GregorB 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed with Merge, in that case. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:50, 15 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 the DPRK one; no consensus for the rest. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:WikiProject Korea cuisine working group to Category:Korean cuisine working group articles

Category:WikiProject Korea history working group to Category:Korean history working group articles

Category:WikiProject Korea DPRK Working Group to Category:North Korea working group articles

Category:WikiProject Korea popular culture working group to Category:Korean popular culture working group articles

Category:WikiProject Korea South Korean geography working group to Category:South Korean geography working group articles

Nominator's rationale: Rename categories to more accurately describe their contents. PC78 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:WikiProject Korea DPRK Working Group to Category:WikiProject Korea North Korea working group. Also, rename the working group from DPRK to North Korea.
  • Keep the rest. Since they are part of WikiProject Korea, they should start with WikiProject. In addition, even though these categories only contain articles at this moment, these may contain non-article pages such as category, list, template, etc in the future. eDenE 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fair enough then, in which case perhaps Category:Korean military history task force articles should be renamed to follow the others? PC78 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That category is mainly maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, thus I'm not sure. In fact, most WikiProjects uses the term 'task force' instead of 'working group.' Should we suggest to use 'task force' instead of 'working group'? eDenE 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps we should, I was starting to think the same myself. It would at least make us consistant with the Military History Project. PC78 21:10, 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 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< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2006 DC Mayoral Candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete The categorisation of politicians by each election in which they have stood is an express lane to extreme category clutter. Each notable election has an article which lists the candidates. Brandon97 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify / List in the 2006 Washington, D.C. mayoral election article. 132.205.93.32 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is already a list in the article. Postlebury 17:18, 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 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< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Temporary Agencies to Category:Temporary employment agencies

Nominator's rationale: Rename; correct case, and clearer wording. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it still isn't 100% clear IMO. The new category could imply that the employment agencies themselves are temporary and not that they employ people into temporary positions. What about Category:Temporary workers employment agencies or something along those lines? Lugnuts 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Brandon97 18:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - The suggested name would be clearer. Dr. Submillimeter 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Nom has, IMO, found a good balance between clarity (missing in the current name) and brevity (missing in Lugnut's unnecessarily long suggestion). The phrase itself is widely enough used that I think confusion will be minimal, even across the pond. (Although I'm willing to listen to counterarguments on that last point.) Xtifr _tälk 12:38, 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: delete. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Xbox 360 and PC exclusive games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category isn't necessary. A pairing between two things that share games isn't helpful. If anything, listify then delete (if no list already exists). This also could encourage others to make other "this and that exclusive" categories, which would be a pain to manage and keep track of. RobJ1981 17:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support speedy deletion per consensus on WT:VG. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:31, 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: not to rename. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical currencies of the United States to Category:Category:Modern obsolete currencies of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" is ambiguous. It could refer to currencies that have been in use for a long time, but in this case, it refers to obsolete currencies. The category should be renamed using "modern obsolete currencies", which is less ambiguous and which matches the parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Modern obsolete" is more ambiguous than the current name. Nathanian 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If "Modern obsolete" is ambiguous, then "obsolete" would be an acceptable alternative. "Historical" is still problematic as well. Dr. Submillimeter 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Modern as opposed to what? Defined how? That is if anything more ambiguous and imprecise than "historical". Most of the articles are not "obsolete currencies" but obsolete coins or notes of the existing currency. Further suggestions are needed. Johnbod 03:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not sure how to deal with the historic categories that keep coming up. Each one may require a unique solution. Here, I wonder if something like Category:Currencies of the United States no longer minted work. Kind of odd and probably would need a companion Category:Currencies of the United States no longer printed. Since there already paper money and coins categories, then maybe Category:Coins of the United States no longer minted and Category:Paper money of the United States no longer printed. Or since the Historic grouping is only used in the US cats (see here), maybe just upmerge. I'll leave a note on the Numismatics project talk page asking for input. Vegaswikian 04:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also from here, this category may have been deleted before. Vegaswikian 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The proposal addresses a phantom problem. This category is well named, and is being used as one would expect to find it used. Postlebury 17:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not a phantom problem. See the discussions on Historical upper houses. Historical programming languages, Historical airports in Canada, Historic ships of Australia, Historic places in Colombia, Historic buildings of Louisville, Historic houses in the United Kingdom, Historic houses in Omaha, Historic United States Executive Departments, Historical cats, Historical US Republicans (all collected courtesy of User:Xtifr). The word "historic" has been used in multiple ways in these categories. It should be avoided in category names. (Also, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion, which strongly urges against using terms like this.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this rename to an even less clear and accurate name. Would support a better suggestion, along the lines Vegaswikian suggests above. Really the discontinued notes and coins of the US dollar, and things like National Bank Note, should be split from the actual other currencies - Confederate, Civil War token etc. Johnbod 15:43, 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: no consensus. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical New York City neighborhoods to Category:Former New York City neighborhoods

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The word "historical" is ambiguous in meaning. In this case, it could refer to a special government designation, or it could refer to locations that are a set age (50, 100, or 200 years old). In this case, it refers to neighborhoods that no longer exist. It should be renamed using "former", which is much less ambiguous. Dr. Submillimeter 15:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Former" just doesn't fit. These places haven't fallen into the East River. Historical is fine. Nathanian 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If "former" is unacceptable, then please suggest an alternative to "historical", as the current name is ambiguous. I seriously thought that these places might be in the National Register of Historic Places when I first saw the category. Dr. Submillimeter 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's only ambiguous if you go out of your way to think of what it might mean, apart from what one would expect it to mean. In reality, there is no problem to be addressed. Postlebury 17:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See the discussions on the subcategories of Category:Former subdivisions of countries using "historic", Historical airports in Canada, Historic ships of Australia, Historic places in Colombia, Historic buildings of Louisville, Historic houses in the United Kingdom, Historic houses in Omaha, (mostly collected courtesy of User:Xtifr). The word "historic" has been used in multiple ways for places, including to indicate old places, to indicate places in government-organized historic registers, and to indicate places that no longer exist. Using "historic" here is really problematic. (Also, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion, which strongly urges against using terms like this.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:46, 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 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< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deceased TV Series Characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_9#Category:Deceased_fictional_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_6#Category:Deceased_fictional_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_18#Category:Dead_fictional_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_6#Category:Deceased_Fictional_Characters

Delete, per many previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - For multiple reasons, characters are not categorized as deceased. I can provide reasons if necessary. (This would be particularly problematic for characters from soap operas, who tend to return from the dead frequently.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete + lock recreation of previously CFD'd cat. Lugnuts 16:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and lock Recreation of many CFD's. It's clearly not needed or wanted. RobJ1981 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt and suggest pre-emptively salting some of the obvious variations by capitalization. Otto4711 19:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt per above. I'm concerned this may be the same person recreating each time with different accounts. Might a checkuser be in order? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt. Guidelines are clear: Don't categorize as alive/dead. Wryspy 03:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete for reasons above. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 06:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete don't categorize by dead or alive - also: those we think are dead have a habit of coming back to life once their portrayer's contract is satisfactorily renegotiated. Carlossuarez46 20:08, 15 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. Yes, "Jewish comedians" is a meaningful intersection. However, sub-dividing that by nationality does not seem necessary. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American comedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection of religion + nationality + occupation Corpx 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep on the basis of the encyclopedic nature of Jewish humor, otherwise merge to Category:American comedians and Category:Jewish comedians. Otto4711 02:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American comedians and Category:Jewish comedians I'm ok with both of the two parent categories, but there doesn't appear to be a need to create this intersection of the two. It's not necessary, for example, to divide Jewish comedians by nationality, nor is it necessary to divide American comedians by religion. Therefore delete this category and upmerge the articles to its parents. Dugwiki 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Although "being Jewish" is, almost universally, the butt of many jokes for Jewish(-American) comedians (and sometimes consists of the entire act), I don't think we should categorize performer by performance (WP:OCAT), which is what this would be if we used the argument that Jewish humor (most of which consists of community humor and not really mainstream humor) justifies the intersection. Then there would be no difference between this category and Category:Comedians whose act consists of references to Judaism. Similarly, there's a documentary called "Look Whose Laughing" which showcases comedians with disabilities. But Category:Comedians with disabilities, although it would hold more than a handful of people (Josh Blue for example), is another example of categorizing the actor by the act. If it wasn't than it would just be a trivial intersection. Of course, then, we could go farther and off the topic of jokes about being black or disabled in America, and start categorizing by other jokes, such as jokes about stepmothers, which is another popular bit with comedians. Bulldog123 15:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Otherwise, it violates WP:OC. Wryspy 06:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 06:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Otto and Dugwiki (note that nom didn't suggest the upmerge; Otto did). Too many intersections here, Xtifr _tälk 13:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Dugwiki, the cat is being used for any comedian who is Jewish regardless of the genre of their humor. Carlossuarez46 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This one passes the test for a notable intersection by ethnicity. A Musing 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think Category:Jewish comedians is a valid intersection of ethnicity and occupation. This subcategory of that, though, isn't needed. Dugwiki 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This isn't a mere coincidental intersection. This is a recognized genre/style of comedy. According to WP:OC, specifically WP:OC#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference "Dedicated group-subject subcategories...should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category." Such an article exists: Jewish_humor#American_Jewish_humor.--Osbojos 20:19, 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.