< July 3	July 5 >

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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People treated for drug addiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Those treated for substance abuse (such impaired driving) may not necesarilly suffer from drug addiction, and it's not Wikipedia's duty to make such a decision. Unneeded negativity in bio, and not a defining characteristic. Gilliam 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:OCAT and a possible WP:BLP problem. szyslak 00:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-defining and in some cases insensitive. Brandon97 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining, ultimately. Carlossuarez46 23:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People treated for substance abuse or delete. Otto4711 03:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Isn't this a recreation? Wryspy 20:09, 7 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidents of Methodist universities and colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:University and college presidents, as overcategorization. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Breaking up the parent cat based on religious denomination doesn't seem to be the most logical step to take. It seems like geography is the way things are going. Maybe if one of the country's cat gets too big, editors can decide how to break it up further, but for now this one cat seems out of placed, and it only holds 5 articles. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:18, 5 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eponymous albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, was previous deleted. --PEJL 19:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- During the afd for List of songs with the same name as song artists, it was suggested it be converted to categories, and there was some interest in the topic of Eponymous songs, and possibly an article about the concept, supporting a category. Eponymous albums were a section of the original list. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I see nothing in WP:OCAT that lends itself to deleting Eponyms. There have been enough self-titled albums to consider it a non-trivial phenomenon, and having a category is a lot cheaper and easier to maintain than a few scattered list of articles. (example see List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums which would be better served as just being in this category, though NOT a subcategory - that would be OC). -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - This is the categorization of unrelated topics with a shared name as listed at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. These albums are otherwise unrelated as they come from multiple genres of music and as they were released in different decades. Since this is the recreation of a category deleted following a 26 Feb 2007 discussion, it should be speedy deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names may be more applicable here. Dr. Submillimeter 21:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't share names (that would be a category for "albums named Untitled"), they share characteristics with regards to their name, and yes, Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people has nothing to do with this other than the inclusion of the word eponymous. Looking around it seems as though being eponymous is a characteristic (many of them mention being eponymous in their opening paragraph, or at least being self-titled), why not group by that? Overcategorization would be "eponymous love albums" or something narrow like that. This seems broad enough to allow a fair number of members, and seeing as they mention they are eponymous or self-titled, it appears to be a reasonable association. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The artists are people. The albums share their names. It's an eponyous category concerning people. Doczilla 04:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as recreation. The fact that this was discussed in the AfD is not a reason to recreate the category. The AfD did not require the creation of this category. Since the category was deleted before the AfD and this fact was not included in the AfD discussion is not a reason to avoid a speedy deletion. Vegaswikian 00:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category was recreated well before the AfD. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 05:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which still means it is a speedy delete. Vegaswikian 07:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names definitely applies—although these don't share the names with each other, the only thing they have in common is a property of their names, "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." (Emphasis mine.) This is definitely categorizing by a characteristic of the name. Xtifr _tälk 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete speedy or not, as non-defining of the album. Carlossuarez46 23:59, 5 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman actors to Category:Ancient Roman actors

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for clarity in line with similar recent renamings. Brandon97 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 13:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.Johnbod 01:05, 6 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Romans who committed suicide to Category:Ancient Romans who committed suicide

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for clarity in line with similar recent renamings. Brandon97 19:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 13:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: wouldn't Category:Ancient Roman suicides be short, sweet, and to the point? (I'll go with whichever option turns out to be preferred, as I don't care that much, but do think that adding "Ancient" is important and well-justified.) Xtifr _tälk 00:01, 6 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman provincials to Category:Ancient Roman provincials

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for clarity in line with similar recent renamings. Brandon97 19:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 13:16, 5 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Jazz fusion groups into Category:Jazz fusion ensembles

Nominator's rationale See Category:Jazz ensembles or even Category:Jazz ensembles by genre. (Mind meal 16:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Rename for consistency, and in line with common usage in the genre. Piccadilly 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, consistency for categories is always a good thing. Xtifr _tälk 23:59, 5 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per the deletion of other similar "Films about..." categories (Category:Films about rape, for example). Inclusion criteria is somewhat POV; neither 24 Hour Party People or The Children's Hour are really about suicide, yet they've been lumped into this category. We already have List of films about suicide, which does the job better. PC78 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "About" is insanely broad. What if it's a supporting character? What if it's back story? What if someone cracked a bad joke about considering suicide? Doczilla 18:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These types of "films about" categories do not work. The problem is that films discuss multiple subjects or that some subjects are only discussed peripherally. This leads to a problem where the category either includes any film that mentions the subject, in which case it does not really identify the subject matter of the film very well or bring together related films, or it is used just for films where the subject is "important", in which case it suffers from subjective inclusion problems that render it useless for categorization. In this case, suicide is not always the only topic featured in many of these films (such as MASH (film)). Moreover, since suicide is such a common subject in many forms of fiction (and in some biiographical and historical works as well), this category could contain a broad swath of articles. It would be better just to delete the category. Dr. Submillimeter 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "If it's a supporting character? What if it's back story? What if someone cracked a bad joke about considering suicide?" then the film wasn't about suicide. OrchWyn 00:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at the films in the category. In MASH, the suicide issue concerns a supporting character (who then decides not to kill himself after he gets laid). Keep going through the category. That's just one example of how this category cannot be accurately applied. Doczilla 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blame the editors on the MASH article and not the category. All it needs is some maintenance and it would be a true cat about films about suicide. Lugnuts 05:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category names need to be self-explanatory so they don't need much maintenance, if any. Doczilla 05:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - This dialog, which touches on the subjective nature of the category, demonstrates why the category cannot be functional and why it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The only film I can think of at all that is literally about suicide is Taste of Cherry. Bulldog123 15:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete breaking up film categories by theme hasn't seemed to work. The inclusion criteria is too subjective.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete suffers from the classic problems with "films about", how "about" the subject does it have to be and what sources say that the film is at least that much "about" the subject in question... Carlossuarez46 00:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: it's a rare film that is unequivocally about a single topic, which makes inclusion in this (or other similar categories) subjective and problematic (and in many cases, POV). Lists are better because they can include discussion about how the film addresses the topic. Xtifr _tälk 00:05, 6 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demolition Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unnecessary eponymous category for the film; these articles are sufficiently interlinked to make this category redundant. PC78 15:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Doczilla 18:25, 4 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armed Forces of South Vietnam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Military of South Vietnam, convention of Category:Military by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per nom. I believe established naming convention is a speedy criteria.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:16, 5 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greg Kihn (...or his Band) songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Greg Kihn songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:27, 4 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 Rename to Category:Writers of historical fiction set in the Middle Ages. Also rename Category:Historical novelists writing about Antiquity to Category:Writers of historical fiction set in Antiquity, for clarity & consistency. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical medieval novelists to ?

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The category is poorly named. The category is for novelists that write historical fiction set in the Middle Ages. However, this could also be interpreted as a category for novelists from the Middle Ages. It would be nice to rename this category, but I have no good suggestions. What are other people's thoughts? Dr. Submillimeter 13:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Novelists using a medieval setting, [[:Category:AuthorsWriters of historical fiction set in the Middle Ages]] perhaps? "Historical fiction" is a very well established phrase. I agree a rename is needed. Johnbod 14:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Writers of historical fiction set in the Middle Ages. "Writers" is used in the category system, rather than "Authors". Brandon97 19:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fine with me, amending Johnbod 21:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Authors of historical fiction set in medieval Europe (Middle Ages only applies to Europe, does it not?) 132.205.44.5 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so I'm not sure of the point of the change. Johnbod 21:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I see a sister category is: Category:Historical novelists writing about Antiquity, which (this will cheer the Dr up) someone has given Category:Ancient Greek novelists as a sub cat. So I think this formula is better, and suggest the other is added to the nom. Johnbod 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Writers of historical fiction set in the Middle Ages. per Brandon97. OrchWyn 00:56, 5 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caucasian Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The concept of "Caucasian race" is based on now discredited typological method of racial classification. This seems to be an example of WP:POINT -- the creator says "Just pointing out the inherent bias, running around marking everyone by 'race'". utcursch

• Delete - The creator of the cat seems to be trying to make a WP:POINT.Bakaman 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. So, you believe discriminating against white people is the answer? Yes I am making a point...if someone wants to run around tagging all the African-Americans 110+ years old by race, then what's good for one 'race' is good for the other.

  However, simply because someone is making a point does not mean a category should be deleted. Are the people included 'Caucasian-American'? Yes. Last I checked, the US Census Bureau defined 'white or caucasian'. So, if the government can do it, why not Wikipedia?

  Further, to say that 'Caucasian-American' is a social construction is inherently biased...after all, is not 'African-American' a social construction?Ryoung122 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Africa is not a construct, it is a continent. European Americans could be legitimate though.Bakaman 01:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The other side of the coin is, of course, that we should PRESUME that 'all' Americans are white, unless otherwise tagged. That can be 'racist' as well. Thus, the best option is to treat everyone equally. Deleting this category does not fulfill the requirement of equal treatment.Ryoung122 22:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Specifically how does this category help navigation? On the surface it would appear to only add to the category clutter for many people articles. What problem does it solve? Vegaswikian 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorization by race or ethnicity. Regardless of whether the category was created to make a point, it is unnecessary and unmaintainable. And for the record I think most of the "African American foo" categories should also be deleted for the same reason. Otto4711 13:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Although: "discredited typological method of racial classification" this isn't true. Creation of cat is obviously WP:POINT. Bulldog123 15:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all race categories, starting with this one. Carlossuarez46 00:03, 6 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 x2. >Radiant< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic Nova Scotia provincial electoral districts to Category:Former Nova Scotia provincial electoral districts

Propose renaming Category:Historical Alberta provincial electoral districts to Category:Former Alberta provincial electoral districts

Nominator's rationale: Rename - These categories are for provincial electoral districts that no longer exist. The term "former" should be used instead of "historic", as "historic" has multiple meanings, including "notable" and "old". Dr. Submillimeter 12:43, 4 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 keep. Kbdank71 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic districts of Wales to Category:Former districts of Wales Category:Former subdivisions of Wales

Propose renaming Category:Historic districts of Northern Ireland to Category:Former districts of Northern Ireland Category:Former subdivisions of Northern Ireland

Propose renaming Category:Historic districts of England to Category:Former districts of England Category:Former subdivisions of England

Nominator's rationale: Rename - These categories are for districts that no longer exist, not for locations that have received the designation "historic district" (which is a term used in the United States to designate areas for preservation). The phrase "former district" would be more appropriate, as "former" unambiguously indicates that the districts no longer exist. Dr. Submillimeter 12:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am editing my nomination to use the term "subdivision" instead of "district", as the locales described by the articles in this category are not necessarily referred to as "districts" and as a potential parent category for this article would be Category:Former subdivisions of countries (or Category:Former country subdivisions). Dr. Submillimeter 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 16:43, 4 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. >Radiant< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic National Assembly for Wales constituencies to Category:Former National Assembly for Wales constituencies

Propose renaming Category:Historic National Assembly for Wales constituencies in the Mid and West Wales electoral region to Category:Former National Assembly for Wales constituencies in the Mid and West Wales electoral region

Propose renaming Category:Historic National Assembly for Wales constituencies in the North Wales electoral region to Category:Former National Assembly for Wales constituencies in the North Wales electoral region

Nominator's rationale: Rename - These categories are for constituencies that no longer exist. In that case, the term "former" would be preferable to "historic", as "historic" has multiple meanings, including "old" and "notable". (Note that the "North Wales" and "Mid and West Wales" subcategories correspond to parent categories for currently existing constituencies and therefore should be kept.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:32, 4 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Debates to Category:Controversies

Nominator's rationale: There's been a merge notice on Category:Debates and Category:Controversies for a while, and there's considerable overlap which I think shows the need for a merge. At present, most member articles correspond much better to Controversy than they do to the more formal & procedurally governed notion of Debate. Dsp13 12:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I now see that there's the debates category has been discussed before. Sorry for not noticing that before: since I find CfD procedure & etiquette a bit confusing, I'd be grateful for any help working out whether / how best to have the discussion again. Dsp13 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Piccadilly 16:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I'm supporting this merge only to clean out Category:Debates for proper articles like the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. After the category is emptied, this article should be included in the now empty cat along with other actual debates. Vegaswikian 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with intent to recreate properly per Vegaswikian. Carlossuarez46 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with intent to recreate properly per Vegaswikian. It seems to me that Category:Debates should then be a sub-cat of Category:Controversies, rather than the other way round as now. Johnbod 15:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe just keep it as a sub cat of Category:Debating? Vegaswikian 05:46, 9 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gates in Jerusalem's Old City Walls to Category:Old City (Jerusalem)

Nominator's rationale: To match the newly renamed main entry, and thus clarify scoping for the other few entries relating to the topic. Tewfik^Talk 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename - A category just for the city gates looks justified, as several articles have been written on the gates. Moreover, it is not necessary to rename this category to create Category:Old City (Jerusalem). I suggest that Tewfik should just create Category:Old City (Jerusalem) and place the gates category within the Old City category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename & agree with the Dr's suggestion. Johnbod 14:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both rename and creation of Category:Old City (Jerusalem). I can see a parent category for the gates in the various old cities since these were defining characteristics and there are many such articles already. I do not see the need for a category that only has one subcat and the lead article. That appears to be over categorization. Now, if there are more articles that could be included in Category:Old City (Jerusalem) my position could change. Vegaswikian 18:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Tewfik seemed to indicate that Wikipedia contains a few other articles on the Old City in Jerusalem. It seems like the new category could be justified. Dr. Submillimeter 21:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is the case, then Tewfik can create the new cat and populate it leaving the existing category as a sub cat. No need for a discussion here. Vegaswikian 00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would just add an additional category, and leave the one on the gates in addition. Epson291 02:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Although the number of entries in this category is not large and incapable of expanding much beyond its present size (I think there is one potential entry missing, Herod's Gate, but that's it) it is just about big enough to justify a category. There are a lot of structures that are not gates that could go into a category "Old City of Jerusalem" e.g. Holy Sepulchre, Dome on the Rock, Wailing Wall. PatGallacher 21:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unfortunately I wasn't around to argue my case, but my rationale was that just as the article's scope moved from just the gates to the entire Old City, so should the category's. I think it would be overcategorising to have a parent category with four or five entries, and the daughter with another seven, rather than one category that could always be subdivided in the unlikely case that it actually became overwhelmed...oh well. Tewfik^Talk 01:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do not see why the scenario that you describe would be considered overcategorization. The overcategorization guidelines are designed to avoid having articles either diffused into very narrow cross-section categories or to avoid having too many categories in individual articles. I do not see either of those problems here. Dr. Submillimeter 09:07, 9 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 Speedy Delete. Creator's request (on category talk page). utcursch | talk 12:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unreasonable nagging templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Offensively named, unclear title, completely unclear what the user who created this category is trying to do. Exploding Boy 07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

• Speedy delete - This is patent nonsense. It belongs on the WP:BJAODN page. Dr. Submillimeter 08:58, 4 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 as empty. >Radiant< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Belgian jazz bands as Category:Belgian jazz ensembles.

• Rationale Common use. (Mind meal 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Withdraw current nomination and delete Belgian bands category, which is now empty. (Mind meal 16:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete as user already merged articles, for consistency at Category:Jazz ensembles by nationality.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (it's effectively a delete, but it's still technically a merge, especially if anyone adds to the category in the mean time) per nom. "Ensembles" is, for better or worse, currently the de-facto standard for jazz groups. Xtifr _tälk 22:33, 5 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Norwegian jazz groups as Category:Norwegian jazz ensembles.

• Rationale Common use. (Mind meal 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename for consistency at Category:Jazz ensembles by nationality.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to the de-facto standard for jazz musical group categories per nom. Xtifr _tälk 22:34, 5 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< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of companies by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There are already categories for X country's companies (under "Companies of X"), so this category duplicates that information. MSJapan 06:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is the correct category for the lists it contains. While they exist, it should exist to hold them. Sumahoy 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category is required to find the articles. Paxse 13:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is not a category for articles on specific companies but instead a category for lists of companies. It therefore is not redundant to other categories for companies sorted by country. Dr. Submillimeter 15:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DrKiernan 13:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a category for the lists of companies articles, which are also up for deletion, which I also oppose. This category should nor be deleted until the outcome of the discussion(s) about the article(s) assigned to the category are decided. Lists are often useful and list articles should not be deleted out of hand, as they often contain knowledge that should not be in individual (stub or sub-stub) articles. Of course, while some lists would be better off as parts of a larger article, that is not the case here and these list are articles in their own right. Lists often tell us about what Wikipedia does not know yet. They also give clues about what is and is not important to write about and serve as starting points for writing, and indexing, articles. Lists are good, so any list category is good to as it allows lists to be found. It follows that list categories should remain while the lists remain as separate articles. -- Cameron Dewe 12:32, 8 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tattoos to Category:Tattooing

Not all the articles in the category concern actual tattoos. New name will conform to WP:NAME. Exploding Boy 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Why not use both with Category:Tattooing as the parent? Vegaswikian 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems unnecessary to me. Extraneous categories are removed every day, besides which the tattooing category seems unlikely ever to get that big, making sub-categories largely unnecessary. Exploding Boy 07:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is splitting out the process from the product unnecessary? We also have businesses that do tattooing and TV shows about various aspects of tattoos and tattooing. While a small category today, there is a lot more that can be added here. If you look at Category:Body modification and then Category:Body piercing, it only includes the types of piercings and not the process, so logically Category:Tattoos, which is also a child, would contain only tattoos. Sub categories need to consider how they are included in other category structures. Vegaswikian 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there are specific types of piercings that have articles (Prince Albert piercing, Nose piercing, etc), there really aren't specific types of tattoos, except for small articles like Tramp stamp, and even then it could be argued that such articles should still fall under "tattooing" rather than "tattoos." Either way though, there's a clear need for a category called "tattooing," and if this category is going to stay it should be renamed "Tattoo." Exploding Boy 02:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What about the Edinburgh Tattoo (and other military tattoos)? - which suggests that Category:Tattooing would be clearer. --Smerus 14:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually that would justify Category:Military tattoos within some military category structure. Vegaswikian 19:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would think that Category:Military tattoos should be a subcategory of both a military category (perhaps Category:Military insignia) and Category:Tattooing (or something similar). Remember that categories are not a tree! Xtifr _tälk 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would depend on how the parent is scoped. I don't see any potential category overlap that would include all of these areas. However a 'see also' in the into would seem very reasonable I may do that since it makes sense no matter the outcome of this debate. Vegaswikian 02:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would prefer one cat and don't care which name is used. >Radiant< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There really isn't much imput here on what to do. I'd support a name change to tattooing, but there doesn't seem much use (at least not yet) on having two separate cats.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:27, 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. >Radiant< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UV Telescopes to Category:Ultraviolet telescopes

Nominator's rationale: Avoids cap in generic term, and avoids ambiguous initialism per WP:NC. Sohelpme 03:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - "Ultraviolet" would be clearer than "UV". Dr. Submillimeter 08:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename makes sense to me. — RJH (talk) 15:38, 5 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 to Category:Female murderers. Slang term and overcat. >Radiant< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black Widows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Similar to the "cop killer" category below. Overcategorization based on crime, gender, and victim. Almost all of the articles are already in Category:Female murderers. Plus title is slang. Andrew c ^[talk] 02:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - only a few of the articles are in both Category:Female murderers and Category:Black Widows unless you have changed the +cats at the bottom of the articles. Most Black Widows have only killed their husband(s), not other people. PianoKeys 09:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Categories do not need to be an exercise in combinatorics. We do not need categories describing every conceivable connection between the murderer and the victim. Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The category is correctly named and defined as Black Widow and has enough entries to justify it's existence, it allows people to find what they are looking for more easily. A google search reflects 321,000 for "Black Widow" and "Murder" PianoKeys 09:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Two things. First of all, there is List of Black Widows. Next, if this category is kept, I'd ask that it be renamed Category:Women who have murdered their husbands or something more specific. (the list should be renamed as well, although I proposed merging the list with Black Widow (woman) at one point).-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Either merge per nom, or rename per Andrew c. -Sean Curtin 20:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; if kept, rename per Andrew c, as less slangy, less likely to have someone think of adding various spider articlers, and "Black Widow" does not match the title of the article on the subject. Carlossuarez46 00:08, 6 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 into murder convicts. Ill-defined and overly broad. >Radiant< 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Americans who have murdered police officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Canadians who have murdered police officers

Nominator's rationale: Delete - segregating murderers on the basis of the occupation of their victims strikes me as not a useful manner of categorization. Something of a narrow triple intersection. There is also a POV implication, by singling out police officers as a class, that their being murdered is more noteworthy than the murder of people of other occupations. Otto4711 01:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems too specific, and saying these individuals are more notable based on their victim (which, actually, may be partially true). But still overcategorization comes to mind. And we may want to consider deleting Category:Black Widows, because this is segregating murderers based on gender and victim (the victim being a husband) (plus the title is slang, it would be like this category being called "Copkillers"). -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons cited, along with Category:Canadians who have murdered police officers. Sohelpme 02:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added the Canadian category to the nomination. Otto4711 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't add to my comment: Rename to Category:Canadian who has murdered a police officer, or say it is "small and with no potential for growth" Johnbod 03:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The killing of police is certainly a notable issue; in the way of these things it is the murderer who gets the article, not the victim, but keep anyway. There should be a general article on the subject in the US but I can't find it. The exceptionally high US rate - roughly 10 times the UK per capita - is much written-about. Johnbod 02:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Segregating based on the occupation of victim is germane in that pretty much every jurisdiction in North America has different (i.e. increased) penalties for the murder of an officer of the law, as opposed to the murder of a civilian. If the courts so segregate offenders, I don't see why we shouldn't. e.g. in New York state "murder" becomes "aggravated murder" (a class A-1 felony = automatic life imprisonment without the possibility of parole) if the defendant could have reasonably known his victim was a police officer. Ford MF 05:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and yeah, there's the thing that a murderer of a police officer is almost guaranteed to receive notable media coverage, whereas your ordinary, everyday murderer does not, unless the crime or the victim is exceptional in some way. Ford MF 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Americans convicted of murder - Categories do not need to be an exercise in combinatorics. We do not need categories to describe every detail of people's lives. In this case, we do not need categories to describe every conceivable way in which people could be described as murderers (who they killed, what weapon they used, where they came from, what other crimes they committed, etc). Therefore this category should be merged into the parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whether everyone likes it or not, murder of policemen is often considered to be a unique issue. Thus there is nothing random about having this category. Sumahoy 13:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Americans convicted of murder per Dr. S. We have already established that we need the specific, objective criterion of conviction. Doczilla 18:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have done nothing of the kind. The renaming of the category was made against consensus in an egregious piece of maladministration. OrchWyn 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "We" means multiple people. Accusing the closing admin of "an egregious piece of maladministration" isn't exactly civil (WP:CIVIL). If you disagree, there are channels for taking that up. But read the CfD guidelines. It is not a vote. The consensus of the handful of people who vote in a CfD pales in comparison to the greater collective consensus of Wikipedia to which we must adhere. If you feel the admin misinterpreted the style guidelines, then take that up through the proper channels just like you did with the speedily deleted recreation Category:Fictional affluent characters. In the meantime, though, the deletion of the poorly named Category:American murderers (Does it mean Americans who murder or people who murder Americans? The name itself should make that abundantly clear.) is the most relevant precedent for us to follow.Doczilla 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The arbitrary decision made in that case does not a "greater collective consensus", as is shown by the fact that none of the related categories are in the arbitrarily renamed form. The bad naming has already been taken up through the chosen channels, and those who are not supporting renaming are the ones guilty of breaching the "collective consensus" that Wikipedia should run according to agree principles and published procedures, rather than by doing whatever it takes to impose their own preferences. A precedent for which there was no consensus is simply meaningless. OrchWyn 00:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major intersection within the murder field. It is quite common for jurisdictions to have specific regulations on penalties for murderers of policemen. This is perhaps the only occupational grouping for which this is true. OrchWyn 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: sockpuppet account, as described here. >Radiant< 06:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic, the category would probably be better named as Category:People who have killed American police officers. So should we be categorizing by Americans who kill police officers or people who kill American police officers? Vegaswikian 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about [[:Category:Americans who have killed police officers whether on U. S. soil or abroad (unless those police offiers happened to be enemy combatants in war), regardless of whether they killed them through murder, manslaughter, suicide, or nonnegligent accident and regardless of whether or not they were ever convicted even though they could sue for libel]]? Because essentially that is what the name of this category means. Doczilla 04:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I mostly agree with Otto on this, but the law in the some US jurisdictions makes that distinction: murder of a police officer is considered a capital crime, with a possible death penalty, where murder of (fill in nearly any other non-uniformed profession, say a teacher, dentist, accountant, landscaper, etc.) is not usually a capital crime. See, e.g., California Penal Code §190.2. Carlossuarez46 00:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Those same statutes also lay out other factors which increase the penalty to include a possible death sentence and we don't break down the murderers category by any of those. No Category:Murderers who killed in the course of committing another felony for example. Nor do we break down convictions by degree, e.g. Category:First-degree murderers, Category:Second-degree murderers and so on. If the person was sentenced to death as a result of murdering a police officer then they should already be in a subcat of Category:Executed people or Category:Prisoners sentenced to death. Also, Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 so unless the one person in the category did it before then the notion of its being a capital crime doesn't apply. Otto4711 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He killed an American cop. Johnbod 19:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And he was never tried or executed for it. The punishment argument still fails. Otto4711 19:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 17:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 05:51, 9 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 close and relist as speedy. Andrew c ^[talk] 02:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Empty, replaced with Category:Citytrain as per Talk:CityTrain#Citytrain_miscapitalisation. Seo75 01:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If it's been empty for 4 days or more, then you could use ((db-empty)). Bencherlite^Talk 01:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete it was only emptied today, but because the issue is capitalization, it fits the speedy criteria, so if uncontested in 48 hours, it can be deleted. I'm going to close and relist at speedy.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:45, 4 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.