< July 20	July 22 >

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Executive Secreteariat of Economic Community of West African States to Category:Executive Secretariat of Economic Community of West African States

Nominator's rationale: Rename, my dictionary does not like "secreteariat." Picaroon (Talk) 23:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, qualifies for speedy surely? Johnbod 02:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename - The proposed new name is to correct a typo. It qualifies for speedy renaming. Dr. Submillimeter 08:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename, Tewfik^Talk 17:34, 25 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 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The result of the debate was withdrawn --Kbdank71 20:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Botanists with author abbreviations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This is apparently a list of people whose names are abbreviated when cited in botany references. This is a variation of the categorization of unrelated subjects with shared name as described at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Except for this form of abbreviation, the authors probably have nothing else in common. Moreover, a more complete, referenced list is already provided at List of botanists by author abbreviation. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Botanists who identified species of plants Category:Botanists who described species of plants - The category is clearly not named so that the non-professional would understand. However, the category is clearly worth keeping if it describes people who identified species of plants. Therefore, I suggest renaming this with the clunky but accurate and easy to understand name above. I am open to alternate suggestions. Dr. Submillimeter 22:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a completely different category of botanists, it is the superset of this one--it may be added at some point, and feel free to, but it's not the same category. KP Botany 22:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you've failed to dealing with the fact that not all botanists who've described species of plants have botanical abbreviations. So, you wanted to delete it because you speculated these authors have nothing else in common, now you want to make it a list of people with less in common than what you nominated originally? This is looking like a serious effort to delete or change this category without any reason. KP Botany 22:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I posted the rename suggestion as a compromise, but it seems to be unacceptable. Moreover, no one has explained why the botanists with and without abbreviated names who perform similar research need to appear in separate categories, which is very disappointing. Since compromise is not an option, I see no reason to continue to push the rename suggestion forward. As for the category itself, it does not appear to be necessary, given that a list is provided at list of botanists by author abbreviation with more complete information than can be provided in the category and given that templates on each page on each botanist gives the abbreviation information. These templates could also be modified to link to the list if desired. From a technical standpoint, this category is wholly redundant and should be deleted. (However, I would support a category for botanists who identify and describe species of plants.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as nominator's rationale is based on pure speculation (wrong) on his part. "Except for this form of abbreviation, the authors probably have nothing else in common." Emphasis added. Other than the fact that the reason they have an abbreviation is that they described and named a taxon. Ah, yes, we'd hate to fact check things, though. Or ask people who might know. KP Botany 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Then why not name this category as "Botanists who described taxons"? That seems to make more sense than "botanist with author abbreviations". (It also does not help when some of the articles are unreferenced; see author citation (botany).) Dr. Submillimeter 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also, in addition to your speculation, you didn't read the article, and this properly goes at templates for deletion. This is how it is described in the botanical literature, as botanists with author abbreviations from IAPT. Did you want we should do original research for a category name? Author citation (botany) is referenced as it should be, to the St. Louis Code, although you're certainly free to update to the Vienna Code if you like. KP Botany 21:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - After I wrote my last comment, KP Botany added a references to author citation (botany), which I think is a good move. However, I still think that if this category is for people that identified plants and assigned botanical names to them, then it should be renamed to indicate this more clearly to the non-professional biologists who read the articles in these categories. The current name is only meaningful to people with a deep understanding of the subject. Dr. Submillimeter 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's not, because in the natural history literature of plants, these authorities (as they're known) are also called "authors" and "taxons" (sic) adds no level of clarity to the layman that "botanists with author abbreviations" does not have, simply the fact that you used "taxons" incorrectly probably bolsters my argument. This is what they're called in the codes, how they're indexed in references for the professional and the layman, and how they're used by both professional botanists and amateur alike. We don't have any privilege for original research into the matter, and changing "author abbreviation" to a vague reference to "described taxons" won't help people coming across literature with "author abbreviations" and "authorities" discussed in it, when the folks doing the reading aren't taxonomists. KP Botany 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Category clutter. Dominictimms 22:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, yes, it is the defining characteristic, those authors who have named taxa and been given author abbreviations for using when giving the complete name of the taxon. This IS the defining characterist. KP Botany 22:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently an important and defining category for botanists, and so suitable category material. Apparently the correct name, which is explained on the category page. Using "described taxons" would not be a move towards clarity for most readers, I expect. Johnbod 22:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, that's correct, that is the defining characteristic. So, speculation, nominated in wrong place, and now declaring it's not what it is. There are other things to delete, rather than discussing this. KP Botany 22:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Highly significant in botany. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, it's not quite "identified" as it is "described," and it is NOT a list of authors who have described plants, but those who have described plants AND have standardized author abbreviations. Not all taxonomists who have described plant species for the literature have author abbreviations, and putting them in this list or changing to this and making it bigger, would also require a template change. KP Botany 22:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I modified my proposed rename to use "described" and not "identified". Since I am not a professional biologist, I do not understand why the people who described species of plants without abbreviated names need to be separated from the people in this category. Could you please explain so that laypeople like me understand? Dr. Submillimeter 22:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because, in botany, unlike in zoology, when amateurs and professionals alike name a plant fully by its species name they are allowed to use standardized abbreviations for the authorities. This is part of the botanical code (not the names, but their allowance) that governs binomial names for the plant kingdom. Books for layman and professionals alike mention these author abbreviations, where and how to find and use them, and this category is a way on Wikipedia to sort a category that exists and is used all over the world by botanists and plant people. When a person comes to a Wikipedia article on a botanist, they can find the author abbreviation, neatly placed at the bottom of the page, courtesy of a template, so that anyone can use the author abbreviation and find it. It's part of the world of plants and botany. There is no need to template botanists who don't have a standard abbreviation, because they don't have one, and they won't need to fill this category. KP Botany 22:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I am still confused as to why this category is needed to segregate the botanists with abbreviations from the botanists without abbreviations. Is the abbrevation a type of special recognition for these botanists that is very well understood within the botany community but poorly understood by the uneducated people in the general public like me? Are the people with abbreviated names much more important within botany than the people who identified species of plants but who do not have abbreviated names? I also do not understand the continuous references to Wikipedia templates for the author abbreviations. Surely, the template should be kept within the articles, and surely, the template should not be modified following any changes to this category. Is this viewpoint erroneous? In the opinion of KP Botany and other highly-regarded professional biologists, would it be acceptable to keep the template but still have the category for botanists with and without abbreviated names? Dr. Submillimeter 22:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My understanding is that botanists who did not describe plants are not very likely to be notable, so this (the revised proposal) is rather like Category:Notable botanists. I am trying to work out what use this category would be to someone who did not understand the present name. Either you know a bit about botany, and would find this category useful, or you don't, and won't. The new rename is also misleading, in that it very clearly implies that botanists not in this category do not describe plants, which is certainly wrong. That is before considering the ambiguity between the technical and popular senses of "describe". Johnbod 22:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are notable botanists who have not described plants, but it is generally part of being a notable botanist. However, I'm not certain I understand your question. I have pointed out repeatedly that the term "author abbreviation" is used in lay literature about plants, because the names appear in publications with abbreviations when discussing plants, and this practice is not entirely restricted to the technical literature. So, we have a practice, we have a category filled by template for a few years, we've used the names used in the technical and lay literature, we've described and limited the category precisely to what we're dealing with, abbreviations for botanical authorities, and, now, we want to load the server with the task to edit the template because....? It seems like we're now fishing for reasons to rename something that was improperly nominated in the wrong place, based upon a faulty assumption. To what purpose? KP Botany 22:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me, for example in thinking I was asking a question. Johnbod 02:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment, then. KP Botany 05:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment - I do not understand the problem with changing a template based on the outcome of this discussion on the category. Is the category added by the template? Is it really a technical problem to modify the template? Also, although I am only an uneducated member of the general public, I ignorantly believe that someone looking up author abbreviations would look at author abbreviation first and not the category. Is this perception incorrect? Also, I have the impression that uneducated laypeople would use List of botanists by author abbreviation to identify people with abbreviated names (especially as the list links the people to the the abbreviations). Is this an invalid perception? Would people really use the category instead? Dr. Submillimeter 23:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete- And salt it, if possible. I will have give a per nom to doc on this... Oh! hang on, I think might have heard of abbrevs for these science guys. But it seems a bit confusing to abbreviate your name to L. like the Linneus dude. How could this be useful, more overcategorization at the botanist articles. Still, I don't know anythign about this so whats the point in having it. And the doc seems to have a pretty convincing argument, once again. Next! Fred ☻ 22:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, so we should delete it, salt it, and justify doing so with flip comments? That doesn't seem very constructive (nor respectful to those who volunteer their efforts to work on botany-related articles). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 01:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep- This category is generated automatically when the template {botanist} is inserted on the article about the botanist. See Template:Botanist. Berton 23:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, absolutely. If the name is confusing, just put a link on the cat page to an article that discusses bot. auth. abbr. :). It's useful, and categories don't necessarily need to be obvious to the layman (in fact, seeking to understand a category you don't understand is a good way to learn).--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 01:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate people, not to support them in their ignorance. If there's any issue at all, it's that author abbreviations aren't well explained anywhere.--Curtis Clark 03:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per Curtis --Melburnian 04:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In my woeful ignorance as an uneducated member of the general public, I am confused as to why professional biologists want to use professional terminology for material meant for the general public. Truly, the ignorant non-professional botanists like me have difficulty understanding the significance of this category as it is currently named. To uneducated people, this category merely looks like a list of people who abbreviate their names. Is it the belief of the professional biologists that the uneducated members of the general public should not be provided information that is easy to understand but instead should be provided highly technical terms. I have no experience in terms of disseminating information on biology to the general public as a professional biologist (although I do have training and experience in this from working with the National Park Service), but I have this ignorant impression that the information should be made easily accessible to the general public. Somehow, I have the impression tat it would make people more interested in reading Wikipedia rather than turning them away. Also, I am still confused as to why botanists who have performed the same research but who do not have abbreviated names need to be separated from the people with abbreviated names. I hope the professional biologists can explain the need for the separation in terms that do not involve the template (which is surely a minor technical problem). Dr. Submillimeter 09:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As non-defining, and especially because it is added by template, which means that it is automatically listed first regardless of whether there are more significant categories on the articles. Alex Middleton 11:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Curtis Clark and SB_Johnny. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because, although author abbreviations are significant to botany, that doesn't imply a category is the best way to represent this in Wikipedia (per WP:OC#Non-defining or trivial characteristic). Comment: the people who regularly edit plant articles seem to mostly be arguing for keep (also see WT:PLANTS). Although I don't agree, this seems worth noting. Kingdon 15:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question "If you could easily leave something out of a biography, it is not a defining characteristic." So, what you're saying is we should leave the author abbreviations out of the botanist biographies altogether, you don't consider it necessary information in their biographies? Is that correct? KP Botany 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I am not a professional biologist, I would somehow expect that the templates that give the abbreviation at the bottom of articles on botanists are sufficient for indicating the author abbreviations for these people. Moreover, it seems that these templates could provide the necessary links to list and to author citation (botany). However, as KP Botany is a professional biologist, I am certain that he/she can explain the need for the category in addition to the list and the template. Dr. Submillimeter 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Based on this edit, it appears that at least one of the participants in this discussion is under the mistaken assumption that the deletion of this category also requires the deletion of a template that has been added to botanists' pages to indicate how their names are abbreviated. While the person making this statement is a highly-trained biologist who should be trusted as a source of information on biology, this asserting about the template is entirely false. The template has not been nominated for deletion, nor is anyone advocating the deletion of the template, nor does the deletion of this category require the deletion of the template. A simple edit to the template would be sufficient. I hope that professional biologists will take this into account. Dr. Submillimeter 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:

1. Sarcasm should be avoided as a justification or mitigating factor pro or con any proposed action such as this. Among wikipedians are masters of sarcasm to exceed anything put forth here, who choose to keep theirs in check in order to avoid an unfair and unwonted advantage over those who believe its use is productive.
2. I notice there is a Category:Messier objects and a Category:NGC objects. Both of these are systems for formally noting nebulae and deep-sky objects. There is also a list of Messier objects, and nine lists (one cumulative and eight sequential sublists) of NGC objects. I'm not a professional astronomer, but I imagine that there are deep sky objects that are on neither list, nor have any formal designation at all, since that is a standardized process that doesn't happen instantaneously after discovery. It seems that at least some objects have both Messier and NGC designations, and, as an example, the Crab Nebula is categorized as a supernova remnant, a Messier object, and an NGC object. I don't see any substantive differences between these categories and lists, and the list and category of botanists with author abbreviations, save that the botanists have personal names even prior to being abbreviated, whereas there are NGC (and perhaps Messier) objects with no pre-existing names. I haven't researched the candidate-for-deletion status of either of these astronomical categories, but I would be as surprised to see them proposed for deletion as I was surprised to see this category proposed. Certainly the article on the New General Catalogue leaves some things to the reader's imagination, especially, are objects still being added. Nevertheless, any omissions or inadequacies in the article don't seem to have brought forth a call for the deletion of the category. Perhaps all these categories need to go away, and perhaps my mentioning the astronomy categories will draw attention to them, especially if deletion of this category stands as precedent. Nevertheless, I believe that all three are useful and should be retained.--Curtis Clark 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My intention was not to be sarcastic but to simply admit that I have no professional biology experience but that other people do. Therefore, I apologize that I have caused offense to Curtis Clark and the other professional biologists. I have had past problems with one user in particular, and I had the impression that a change in tone to something more groveling would be a more effective way to interact with the person. As for Category:Messier objects and Category:NGC objects, I would argue that these catalogs represent groupings of similar objects (objects that appear nebulous instead of like stars) and not just objects with similar names, much like taxonomical designations do not just gather together organisms with the same genus name but instead organisms with shared characteristics. However, I really do not understand what the people in Category:Botanists with author abbreviations have in common other than having names that are abbreviated in print. Are they significantly different from other botanists? Does their research differ from other botanists? I really hope that one of the professional biologists can explain in terms that people without professional botany experience like me can understand (and this is not a sarcastic statement). Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawl of nomination - Since this has degenerated into personal attacks, I am withdrawing my nomination. It may not be entirely my fault, but I am willing to accept all of the blame anyway. I will avoid the biology-related categories in the future. I sincerely apologize to everyone involved. Dr. Submillimeter 09:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User Talk:Dr. Submillimeter) The common thread of botanical author abbreviations, scientific names of organisms, and NGC and Messier names is that all are systems of assigning unique, authoritative designations to items of scholarly interest, in order to facilitate communication, both among scholars and to a lesser extent among the general public. Botanical authors (in this sense) are unique in that they have published new names of plant groups, or made changes to existing names, within the framework of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Like extended astronomical objects, botanical authors are initially discovered, and that discovery is based on interpretation: is this person the author of this putative publication of a work that purports to create a new or changed botanical name, and does the publication either follow the rules of the ICBN, or else come close enough that it should be tracked anyway? Once a person is identified as such, the rules stipulate that there may be an abbreviation of the name. For consistency and repeatability, that abbreviation should exist in a canonical form. That canonical form is currently assigned and maintained in Brummitt & Powell's Authors of plant names and its successors. In the case of most modern authors, and many ancient ones, existing usage is respected (when I published my first plant name, for instance, I used "C. Clark", and that was accepted), but when such abbreviations are not unique, they are modified to make them so. Thus, just as there exists a set of extended astronomical objects, there exists a set of authors of botanical names. In both cases, the known examples are a subset, and in both cases the formally designated examples are a further subset still.--Curtis Clark 14:25, 23 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islomaniacs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a rare word (it is however in the Dictionary) that is being used to arbitrarily categorize a number of people - this is Original Research unless sources are provided showing that the subject in question was called an Islomaniac. The category should either be deleted (if not enough instances of the use of the word are found), or the articles that comprise it should be inspected to insure that reliable sources are provided to justify inclusion. Sfacets 22:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining. Wryspy 06:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Most applications of this word are POV because it is very hard to verify. Verification is definitely required because the name would possibly be considered insulting by some people. A list of people with citations would be ok, but the category can only be POV because citations cannot be given. LeSnail 16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining, even if you could find sources that people called these people that. Carlossuarez46 22:26, 24 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with steam power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This category only contains James Watt. The category seems nebulously-defined; what does being "associated with steam power" entail? Do people who worked with steam locomotives count? What about people who work in modern power plants (which often heat water to turn turbines to produce electricity)? Is this category really needed anyway? The article on steam power explains the connections between people and steam power better than this category. The category should probably be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 21:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod 22:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague "associated with" category. The title means nothing. Wryspy 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems like the most logical thing would be to have a category called "Steam power" and put articles on steam power and related subjects underneath, including the pioneers of that power generation method. But if not, then delete this category. .V. _[Talk|Email] 02:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 18:06, 25 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Humanoid animals

Nominator's nationale: <!Danucciguzman 19:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)>[reply]

I believe Luigifan is creating useless, non-appealing categories which shouldn't be created. I'm considering having this category for deletion, because we don't have the childish perspective of creating an article as ridiculous as Luigifan's "Humanoid animals" category. This category will and should be deleted right now. Let's begin in deleting Category:Humanoid animals and all categories with ridiculous titles Danucciguzman 11:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This category looks like an attempt to categorize anthropomorphic fictional characters. It contains things like Minnie Mouse and Sonic the Hedgehog. Would a rename or merge to "anthropomorphic fictional characters" be appropriate? Do we want to categorize characters this way? Note that many of these characters fall into fictional animal categories already. For example, Minnie Mouse is in Category:Fictional mice and rats. Maybe things like "fictional anthropomorphic mice and rats" are needed. Dr. Submillimeter 20:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - I honestly don't know why you seem so worked up; in any case, this category categorises articles where no other substitute could be found. Conceivably, if I remembered there was a bat-like character in the Sonic franchise, but I couldn't remember its name (yet I recalled the existence of this category), I could start looking there. There are other, more obscure examples I could have used, but that was the first that came to mind. Octane ^{[improve me]} 21.07.07 2253 (UTC)
• Delete terribly named category that fails to distinguish its meaning. Wryspy 06:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fictional humanoid animals? Where would you draw the line, if you're including stuff like Sonic or Minnie Mouse? 70.55.91.131 07:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a recently created category, and is simply not needed as it adds nothing of real value -- the concept of "humanoid" is so loosely defined that it encompasses virtually all fictional animals that are sentient and communicate verbally. (I would almost suggest that it might be of greater value to have a category for fictional animals that don't fall into this incredibly broad category!) Cgingold 13:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poorly defined and unencyclopaedic category, Tewfik^Talk 18:10, 25 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Christian radio stations in the United States, except merge WDEO-FM, KNOM-FM, and KQOV-LP into Category:Catholic radio stations. All the rest are non-Catholic Christian stations.--Mike Selinker 02:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Religious radio stations to Category:Religious radio

Nominator's rationale: These two categories appear to be serving the same function, only this category was itself categorised Category:Religious radio stations, creating a navigational double-redirect Ohconfucius 13:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge correctly to Category:Christian radio stations for the non-Catholic/Hindu etc ones, which is probably all of them. Johnbod 13:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge correctly per Johnbod, but make Catholic a subcat of Christian; why people continue to assert that Catholics aren't Christians is baffling, but Catholicism is a branch (perhaps the largest by adherents) of Christianity and should be categorized accordingly. Carlossuarez46 22:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could rename "Christian" to "Protestant", unless there are Othodox ones. Johnbod 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to that category and its subcats, though Category:Jewish radio should probably be renamed to fit the convention. Tewfik^Talk 18:18, 25 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles with ASCII art to Category:Wikipedia articles with ASCII art

Nominator's rationale:

This category currently serves two purposes: on one hand, it is used as a maintenance category for articles that contain ASCII art illustrations that should be replaced with images; on the other, it's also used in articles that contain deliberate examples of ASCII art that need no fixing. Also, though it is used as a maintenance category, it is neither tagged nor named as such.

As a solution, I propose that this category be renamed and tagged as a proper maintenance category, and have formulated this request accordingly. This would entail moving the articles currently in it that require no fixing to either Category:ASCII art (where most of them already are) or, possibly, to a new category created specifically for them. It should be noted doing so will mostly empty the category; this isn't, and has never been, a particularly backlogged maintenance task. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per Nom. p.s. a project "Text Art" would be nice one day, which would also include ANSI art, PETSCII, ATASCII, RTTY art etc. and not just ASCII art --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: I would also like to include the nomination of renaming Category:ASCII art to Category:Text art, what do you think? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment non-ASCII monosplaced computer text art is also called ASCII art in many places... 132.205.44.5 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment shouldn't this appear on the Talk page? Tewfik^Talk 18:37, 25 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical political parties of Puerto Rico to Category:Defunct political parties of Puerto Rico

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" could have many meainings. It could refer to a currently-existing party that is a set age (50, 100, or 200 years old), but in this case, it refers to parties that no longer exist. I suggest renaming this category using "defunct" to match the parent category (Category:Defunct political parties) and to more clearly indicate what this category is referring to. Dr. Submillimeter 13:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per convention, Tewfik^Talk 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod 19:30, 26 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical Swiss cantons to Category:Former cantons of Switzerland

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The other subcategories of Category:Former subdivisions of countries were renamed following a 11 Jul 2007 discussion. The term "historic" is generally unclear, as it could refer to places that are a set age (50, 100, or 500 years old) or places that receive a special designation. The term "former" would more clearly indicate that these cantons no longer exist. Dr. Submillimeter 13:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. LeSnail 15:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --emerson7 | Talk 16:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:30, 24 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" is vague. For places, it could refer to places that are a set age (50, 100, or 500 years old), places that have been listed in a government register, places that no longer exist, or places where something "important" happened. See, for example, 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. In this case, the category refers to neighborhoods that no longer exist. It should therefore be renamed "former", which is a much clearer term. (Also note that the category was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 13#Category:Historical New York City neighborhoods, but the discussion was closed as "no consensus" with only two other people commenting against the rename. Given the precedent for renaming these categories and the lack of input on that discussion, I thought that it would be appropriate to relist this category.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current name is clearer. The first thing "Former New York City neighborhoods" makes me think is that these places were once in NYC, but aren't now due to boundary changes. Dominictimms 22:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the face of all of the specific examples that I cited above, where "historic" is frequently used differently from the way it is used here, do you really think that "historic" is clearer? If you think that "former" is a bad choice, could you propose an alternate other than "historic"? Dr. Submillimeter 22:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment perhaps use the word defunct or no longer extant. 70.55.91.131 08:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The nom's list of allegedly comparable cases is largely irrelevant as 85% of them did not involve the word "Historical". The only example that does use "Historical" is for airports, and that is a completely different case. While airports close down and the land is built over, or ploughed up, this parts of New York still exist, but are no longer known by the same names. Historical is the best possible choice of term in this case. Alex Middleton 11:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is an amazing case of splitting hairs. Is the average user really going to understand or recognize the subtle difference between "historic" and "historical" (if the twom words are different)? Also, it does seem that the neighborhoods described here could be described as having been built over. Surely, the pig farms described in Pigtown, Brooklyn no longer exist. Dr. Submillimeter 12:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- The name as stands is unclear as to whether the neighborhoods are particularly historically significant, or whether they just don't exist anymore. I don't follow the objections to the name change. Neither name suggests any more than the other that there have been boundary changes in NYC. And I, as a native speaker of English, don't feel much of a difference between historic and historical, nor does the etymology of those words suggest that there ever was much of a difference. LeSnail 15:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom or merge to Category:New York City neighborhoods. The current name gives no indication that these are supposed to be former neighborhoods; I would have assumed that it was a category for culturally or historically significant neighborhoods (a subjective and ambiguous classification itself). There may be a tiny amount of ambiguity in the suggested name, but it is extremely minor compared to the ambiguity of the current name. "Historic(al)" is one of those phrases (like "Notable" or "Famous") that really doesn't work in category names in general. "Former" is used for similar categories throughout Wikipedia—which greatly reduces the already-small chance of confusion. Frankly, I'm not really sure we need to subcategorize neighborhoods this way, which is why I suggest a merge, but if we are, then "Former" is the least problematic term to use. Xtifr _tälk 00:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - but to Category:Former neighborhoods of New York City, rather than to Category:Former New York City neighborhoods -- it's slightly more clear, as it doesn't suggest the possible meaning that these neighborhoods were former parts of New York, and are now part of [???]. Although the current category is correctly named -- and properly uses the term "historical" rather than "historic" -- it is indeed, sadly true that there is widespread confusion about the difference in meaning between those terms. So, in the interest of avoiding any possible confusion over the purpose of the category, I have to agree that a name change is in order. I would also note that the creator of the category wrote the following line, right there on the page: "This category is for former neighborhoods of New York City... " (emphasis added) Cgingold 13:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I'm ambivalent between the name proposed by nom & Cgingold's above, but "Historical" has got to go. Carlossuarez46 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom with Carlos' ambivalence. Tewfik^Talk 18:46, 25 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical places of Assam to Category:Geography of Assam

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The term "historical" is vague. For places, it could refer to places that are a set age (50, 100, or 500 years old), places that have been listed in a government register, places that no longer exist, or places where something "important" happened. In this case, thern seems to be used as a synonym for "important" places. Since all of the articles in Wikipedia must meet notability criteria to be listed in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Notability), listing locations as "historical" in this sense is redundant. Moreover, inclusion in this category relies on the subjective opinions of editors as to whether the categories are "important" enough to be listed here. Therefore, this category should not be used for categorization. (Also, see the precedent for this in 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.) Since most of the articles seem to be on places, I suggest merging it into Category:Geography of Assam. Dr. Submillimeter 13:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge diffferently. These are a rather mixed bunch, several being single buildings or historical or architectural importance. The LCD most appropriate category is unsurprisingly Category:History of Assam, and some should also be added to Category:Indian architecture. Johnbod 20:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to reserve the "history" category for discussions on general histories and specific events and not just any article that mentions the past. Otherwise, anything on Wikipedia that describes the past, including Messier 108, could be listed as a "history" article. However, I am willing to subdivide these articles into a few other categories, such as appropriate "building and structure" subcategories, "hills" categories, etc. Dr. Submillimeter 21:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the paucity of choice of categories for Assamese articles, archaeological sites and single buildings should go to history rather than geography. Only the hill and the battle site should go there, if any. Since no height is given for the hill, and the DC's bungalow is on top of it, it suggests it is very small hill by Assamese standards, and should not be categorised as one. Johnbod 22:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What about a Category:Archaeological sites in Assam (a potential subcategory of Category:Archaeological sites in India) for the archaeological sites? This seems clearer than a "history" label. Also, note that Category:Buildings and structures in Assam does exist for buildings and structures that are currently standing. Dr. Submillimeter 22:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Category:Archaeological sites in India or C:Temples in Assam etc to all articles except Saraighat & Itakhuli, which can go to geography, although really they should just be merged with the temple and battle articles respectively. I doubt if there are enough articles for an Assamese archeological category, especially when they are all such poor stubs. Johnbod 02:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to geography or buildings now that Johnbod has tagged archaeology. Tewfik^Talk 18:49, 25 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical liberal parties to Category:Defunct liberal political parties

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" could have many meainings. It could refer to a currently-existing party that is a set age (50, 100, or 200 years old), but in this case, it refers to parties that no longer exist. I suggest renaming this category using "defunct" to match the parent category (Category:Defunct political parties) and to more clearly indicate what this category is referring to. Dr. Submillimeter 12:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the nomination is what you mean? Johnbod 20:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I corrected the problem. Dr. Submillimeter 21:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a clearer name would be better, would these parties include parties that are named "Liberal", even if they don't subscribe to classical liberalism, political liberalism, social liberalism, or the mutant US usage of the word liberal? or perhaps subcategorize with provisions on classical, political, social, libertarian and socialist left-wing, and parties named "Liberal". 70.55.91.131 08:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is actually an issue that concerns another parent category (Category:Liberal parties) as well. This nomination is simply concerned with changing the word "historic". As long as Category:Liberal parties exists, this category should at least have a better name. Dr. Submillimeter 08:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. and deal with the issue of what a liberal party is later. Whatever these parties are, they aren't more historic than any other parties--what they have in common is that they no longer exist, and defunct is the clearest way to express that. LeSnail 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. As Dr. S and Lesnail say, we can sort out any questions about the parent category in a separate nomination if necessary. Xtifr _tälk 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, Tewfik^Talk 18:50, 25 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Accidental suicide victims to Category:Accidental deaths

Nominator's rationale: Merge: From the WP article Suicide: "Suicide is the act of intentionally taking one's own life" (emphasis added). Therefore, there are no accidental suicide victims by definition. Gilliam 06:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - That definition in the article on suicide lacks an inline citation. When a reference is added for the definition, then I will vote to merge. Dr. Submillimeter 08:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Reference provided.- Gilliam 08:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Look at the article for Terry Kath to see more (as per the nom above). Lugnuts 08:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - The referenced article on suicide clearly indicates that the act of suicide in intentional, not accidential. Dr. Submillimeter 10:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't this an Oxymoron? Merge. Sfacets 22:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge is OM per definition. Bulldog123 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While the term "accidental suicide" might be a neologism, the intended meaning is not identical to "accidental death". Accidental deaths include people who died in accidents that were not caused directly or indirectly by the victim. The term "accidental suicides" would be a subset of accidental deaths where the victim directly caused the accident. For example, a person who is walking along the street and a piano falls on their head would not be an accidental suicide but would be an accidental death. A person who is juggling hand grenades and accidentally blows himself up would be both an "accidental suicide" and an accidental death. Thus the term, while informal, does have a clear meaning and distinction from the larger category of accidental deaths. Dugwiki 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Perhaps a rename would suffice? "Category:People who accidentally killed themselves" maybe? That would dodge the "suicide is intentional" issue. Dugwiki 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, that might work but not in practice: if someone dies in a car accident, do we - should we - inquire whether and to what extent s/he was "at fault" and if s/he reaches some threshhold, they "accidently killed themselves"; ditto with drug use, or nearly any other dangerous activity (javelin catching, handgrenade juggling, sky diving, or jaywalking); what about unwittingly being caught for a capital crime. Think whether one should put Janis Joplin, James Dean, John Belushi, Steve Irwin, Guy Faukes, or the pilot in most plane crashes in such a category, and what justification one would have for putting them in or not. Carlossuarez46 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and lack of clear definition, Tewfik^Talk 18:52, 25 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Konkani Cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, or at least Rename to Cateogory:Konkani cuisine. There ought to be a Konkani cuisine article before we create a category. No objection to reinstating this category once there's an article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Indian cuisine - Separating the one article in this category (dosa) from other articles on Indian cuisine is probably not necessary at this time. However, if the category can be populated, then it is probably worth keeping. Note that a Google search on "Konkani cuisine" returns multiple webpages on the topic, but many are other Wikis, discussion pages, and other unreliable references. Dr. Submillimeter 10:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just delete Dosa is already categorised under two South Indian cusine-by-state categories, which seems enough. Should it be in Keralan cusine also? Johnbod 21:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what is at this point an unnecessary category, Tewfik^Talk 18:53, 25 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High schools in Flint, Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:High schools in Michigan, convention of Category:High schools in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Does flint have more than four high schools? It might be worth keeping if that is the case. Dr. Submillimeter 07:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The state category requires subdivision. Dominictimms 22:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Detroit certainly deserves its own category. Dr. Submillimeter 22:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: major cities are one thing, but beyond that, I think states should generally be subdivided by county. And then major city categories can be subcategories of the county categories. Xtifr _tälk 11:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I looked at Flint, Michigan. The article claims that the city has six high schools. That is probably enough to justify a category for the city. (Subdivisions by county could be considered supplementary to the subdivisions by city.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:49, 22 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.