< June 5	June 7 >

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 don't rename. — CharlotteWebb 04:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Operas by Kurt Weill to Category:Musical dramas by Kurt Weill

Category:Operas by Kurt Weill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Musical dramas by Kurt Weill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The category includes more than just operas composed by Weill, with operettas and musicals also in the category, among other types of musical drama. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this goes ahead it should be "musical dramas" Haddiscoe 22:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Part of a larger scheme of operas by composer. Probably the non-operas (although I think the term should be interpreted broadly) should go to a head-cat of "Musical dramas". In fact the ones with articles are very few - only 5, all of which I can personally live with being categorised as operas. Should that list be on the category page? Give it its own article I say. Johnbod 23:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose There is indeed a large scheme of operas by composer. Opera genres (such as music dramas) do not have their own composer cats because there are about 30 of them and subdivision of composers would be confusing and impractical. Also please note that operettas are a form of opera. Musicals can be removed from the category if necessary. -- Kleinzach 07:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In this category, there is only one opera (in terms of articles, not including the list). The rest are two musicals, an operetta, and a ballet chanté. If opera was the predominant format for his works, it would be debatable, but this isn't the case. Musical theater and opera are certainly related, but it seems rather foolish to call the category "Operas" by Kurt Weill, when most of the articles included are not in fact operas! It would make just as much sense to call the category "Musicals by Kurt Weill" (perhaps more sense), but I wouldn't want to do that, seeing as, in today's context, the term "musical" refers specifically to that Broadway style of musicals. The convention is silly and should be changed (by the way, I have not found any page where it is stated that the category "Operas by X" should be the category for all musical dramas; it just seems like someone forgot that opera is not the only form of musical drama when the conventions were made). Musical drama is a much broader term; why should the narrower term be used in favor of the broader term? Opera is a sub-genre of musical drama, not the other way around (note the difference between musical theater and musical drama—the latter includes all dramatic works that use music, while musical theater refers to that style of musicals which began in part with Weill's Threepenny Opera). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Weill's works were indeed varied. However his operas merit 5 pages in Stephen Hinton's article in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera where 15 of his works have separate articles. Of his complete works (30 in all), the following would arguably come within a general definition of modern opera: Der Protagonist (opera), Royal Palace (opera), Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny (Songspiel), Die Dreigroschenoper (Songspiel), Happy End (Songspiel), Der Jasager (School opera), The Seven Deadly Sins (sung ballet), Die Bürgschaft (opera), Der Kuhhandel (operetta), Down in the Valley (folk opera), and Street Scene (American opera). We could argue about on or two borderline works . . . . Perhaps some of Weill's other works could go in a new Category:Musicals by Kurt Weill? -- Kleinzach 09:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The operas by composer categories are being used by WP:WPO for bot runs; they are also used for exclusion by the classical music project on their bot runs. For this reason we have agreed to have one-article categories such as Category:Operas by Ludwig van Beethoven even though he only ever wrote one opera (under two names). I acknowledge we need more articles on Weill operas, Silbersee for example is on my to-do-list on my user page and should arrive some time this year. --Peter cohen 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Johnbod. No objection to creating a Category:Musical dramas by Kurt Weill or Category:Compositions by Kurt Weill or Category:Works by Kurt Weill for the non-operas, but this one shoukd kept as part of the Category:Operas by composer scheme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've just created the compositions category as it should be there by the scheme agreed with WP:CM --Peter cohen 16:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, what's wrong with just creating a new category? I don't see the need to change the existing one (though, of course, the existing one needs to be policed properly). Moreschi ^Talk 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Why fix what ain't broke. So what if a few of Weill's works aren't strictly operas? I see no advantage in changing the category name, and I am a musicals person more than an opera person. Certainly there can be no advantage to changing the name from a word that means something, like "operas", to a word that has no agreed meaning at all, like "musical dramas". In fact, the closest article name in Wikipedia is Music drama, which is a stupid name for Wagner operas. -- Ssilvers 13:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Ssilvers and others above. The opera corpus deliberately uses the term "opera" in its widest sense, and includes not only operettas but also some works which usually aren't thought of as operas but could easily be described as such (some examples are Show Boat, Sweeney Todd and West Side Story) for the very good reason that it is practically impossible to draw any clear dividing-line or to define "opera" in a way that excludes such works. The expression "musical dramas", like the expression "operas" is just a way of keeping all Weill's works together, and it doesn't make sense to use it just for this composer without applying it to all the other composers in the corpus. --GuillaumeTell 21:27, 11 June 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 speedy close, because this category is already the subject of a CfD further down this page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Primates of the Jerusalem Greek Orthodox Patriarchate and Epitropia of the Holy Sepulcher in America

Category:Primates of the Jerusalem Greek Orthodox Patriarchate and Epitropia of the Holy Sepulcher in America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overly restrictive, to put it gently; the set of appropriate members appears to be null. The title given in the category name appears to be incorrect. The only member does not belong in it. The category name is ambiguous, and there is no category definition. 7Kim 20:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- since it does not appear, alas, to be speedyable -- for the following reasons:
  • The category title is ambiguous due to the and. It may represent set union, in which case the category should be split into Category:Primates of the Jerusalem Greek Orthodox Patriarchate (but N.B.: Category:Eastern Orthodox patriarchs of Jerusalem already exists) and Category:Epitropia of the Holy Sepulcher in America. Or it may represent set intersection (all people who hold or have held both holy offices) which yields what is almost certainly a null set and is therefore small without possibility of growth. Also due to the and, it is long, unwieldy, and confusing.
  • The category contains one (1) member article, whose subject clearly does not belong in the category as he, according to the article (which should provide justification for category membership) is not and never has been Primate of the Jerusalem Greek Orthodox Patriarchate -- by definition, the Patriarch himself.
  • It is not clear to me, on research, whether the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem are one and the same; they appear to be different names for the same entity. If I am wrong on this, I should welcome correction; but the exact and proper title would be an important piece of information for the category descriptive text, if there were any, which there is not.
    • --7Kim 21:03, 6 June 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. Conscious 08:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Mountains of the Czech Republic to Category:Mountains and hills of the Czech Republic. The current category includes both the highest mountain (Sněžka, 1,602 m) and a butte Přerovská hůra not much above terrain level. In the Czech Republic the distinction between a mountain (hora) and a hill (kopec) is not clear cut and sometimes the name is traditionally incorrect (the White Mountain of Battle of White Mountain fame is a hill). Czech Wikipedia uses joined "mountians and hills" category [1]. Pavel Vozenilek 19:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and precedents. This change should probably be made across the board, but it's certainly worthwhile to do it for categories which contain hills. Haddiscoe 22:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod 17:49, 9 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Prospect 100 best modern Scottish buildings

Category:Prospect 100 best modern Scottish buildings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Another top 100 list in another magazine, from 2005. The subjective/proprietary nature of all such lists casts doubt on their encyclopedic value, and it does not appear that this list is culturally iconic, either. The complete list is replicated in the main article, Prospect 100 best modern Scottish buildings, which may constitute a copyvio, but that is a separate issue. choster 19:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and previous CfDs. Pavel Vozenilek 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a blatant example of subjective categorisation. --7Kim 19:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Transitory lists should not be used as a basis for categories. Haddiscoe 22:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all Johnbod
• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:08, 8 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:The Golden Girls

Category:The Golden Girls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, unlikely to expand, everything nicely interlinked through articles and navtemplate. Otto4711 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:08, 8 June 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: keep.--Mike Selinker 03:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Rocky Horror to Category:Rocky Horror Shows

Category:Rocky Horror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Rocky Horror Shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is for multiple shows so the plural in the name is really needed as well as something more then just a portion of the name of the shows. Another option for the rename target is Category:The Rocky Horror Shows. No opinion right now on which is better. Vegaswikian 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename An alternative would be to go with the better known and more commonly used name (which is most similar to WP convention) and create Category:Rocky Horror Picture Show. This would be the category name I would type in to find these articles. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is - "Rocky Horror" is an extremely common shorthand term for both the show and the film. The looser name encompasses both better than the suggested renames would. Categorizing as either "The Rocky Horror Show" or "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" would lead to a splintering of the category as each version has articles that are exclusive to either the stage show or the film and would possibly necessitate several additional categories ("The Rocky Horror Show characters" and "The Rocky Horror Picture Show characters"; "The Rocky Horror Show songs and "The Rocky Horror Picture Show songs"; and the articles on Shock Treatment and the proposed sequels to the film would have to be categorized separately from the stage show). The current name does well enough in describing the category's contents and the rename isn't helpful. Otto4711 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Otto. Carlossuarez46 17:09, 8 June 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 Delete per many precedents. Vegaswikian 23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Full House

Category:Full House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small volume of material is interlinked through text and navtemplate. Category not needed for navigation. Otto4711 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not such a small volume. True, the template and the category contain the same material, but it's often useful to have categories that link to broader categories such as television shows. Also, it leaves a structure in place if new episodes or characters are added. 69.201.182.76 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Any new articles for characters or episodes would go in the respective episode and character sub-cats, which would remain undisturbed should this category be deleted. There are a grand total of two articles in the category. Otto4711 21:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:09, 8 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:The Sarah Silverman Program

Category:The Sarah Silverman Program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is not needed for the show article and episode list. Otto4711 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:10, 8 June 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Discontinued versions of Windows to Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows

Category:Discontinued versions of Windows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to full and proper name of the product in question. -/- Warren 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Doczilla 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --7Kim 19:59, 6 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Football (soccer) families of note

Category:Football (soccer) families of note (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dudesleeper · Talk 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category doesn't contain football families of note - it contains individual people. A list already exists. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Duplicates List of football (soccer) families of note. --John 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. – Elisson • T • C • 16:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The list is much more useful. ArtVandelay13 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective category that is redundant to the list. Doczilla 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; if we actually had articles about the families themselves, that would be another matter. -- Visviva 04:50, 10 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Dawson's Creek

Category:Dawson's Creek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for the show article and episode/character subcats. Otto4711 15:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems like a perfectly fine category to me. Since it is the main category for the show which in turn shows up in the Category:Categories named after television series, the rationale that the category is not needed is incorrect. – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Johan's reply above is flawed. Category:Categories named after television series is not intended to be an all-inclusive category of all television series. In fact, the great majority of television series do not require their own eponymous category because episodes and characters are sufficiently handled by other existing categorization schemes and actors are not categorized by television series. Instead, Category:Categories named after television series houses the exceptions to that general rule (ie eponymous categories for television series that are unusually large and diverse enough to justify their being kept.) Since the Dawson's Creek category is neither large nor diverse enough to be necessary for navigation of the related articles, delete. Dugwiki 17:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:10, 8 June 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Rock operas into Category:Rock musicals

Category:Rock operas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Rock musicals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge, There seems to be no logical distinction b/w the two categories. Many articles are in both. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 14:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild oppose - Operas don't have spoken dialogue and musicals do. Anything in the categories should be sorted rather than merged. Otto4711 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is simply untrue. There are many genres of opera and some of them, such as Singspiel and Opéra comique feature dialogue. Please read the articles. -- Kleinzach 06:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Haddiscoe
• Oppose per Otto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose by the logic Otto4711 presented. If well-intentioned (I assume) editors have been sloppy about categorising works, merging the categories is just about the worst possible remedy. --7Kim 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not sure that everyone would agree with Otto4711's distinction. Even the Opera article refers to the action being conveyed "wholly or predominantly" by music. And no one would claim that The Magic Flute wasn't an opera. That said, I have no problem leaving the categories separate as long as there's text describing the differences. Right now, one is a sub-cat of the other, which can't be right. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 16:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some cleanup on the parent categories for that are used for these cats. Should look better now. Vegaswikian 05:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Rock operas are entirely or almost entirely sung, while rock musicals also have spoken dialogue (see Jesus Christ Superstar vs. RENT). This is the essential difference between operas and musicals in the first place. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and strong support for nom. Abstain per nom and Peter Cohen on the basis that rock operas are rock albums that tell a cohesive story whereas rock musicals are stage productions. (Original comment follows.) The important distinction between operas and musicals is that the former are invariably unamplified and rely on the natural human voice (hence the training that opera singers have in order to project their voices). Also please note that many form of opera such as the German Singspiel or the French opéra comique feature spoken dialogue as well as singing so that factor is not relevant here. Rock operas are in reality a million miles away from real opera and very close to musicals. Whether they are indistinguishable from musicals is for you to decide. -- Kleinzach 06:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's quite true, Kleinzach. Whether the voice is amplified or not is dependent on the production of the work, not the work itself. For example, when Threepenny Opera, one of the first modern musicals, premiered in 1928, the voice was not amplified, but when it was revived off-Broadway in 2006, the voice was amplified. Amplification of voice is a product of modern trends, not the nature of the work itself (although true opera is almost always performed without amplified voice...but as I understand it, the performance of opera has not evolved over the years like the performance of musical theater). Anyway, for the distinctions between opera and musical theater, the article on musical theater has a good (albeit unsourced) discussion that I don't care to repeat here. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Threepenny Opera was written in a hybrid Songspiel form, that's why it can easily be performed in different styles. Other operas don't fall into this category. -- Kleinzach 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nixon in China was amplified when I saw it. And that's definitely an opera. --Peter cohen 16:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps the exception that proves the rule? John Adams gave some very precise instructions about the effect he wanted, see [2]. -- Kleinzach 00:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How does that prove the rule at all? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Musical precision, ensemble and timing are the issue here. -- Kleinzach 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For what it's worth, in the main namespace Rock musical redirects to Rock opera. If we're going to keep the categories separate, that probably needs to be changed. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 13:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that is correct. In looking at the opera article and talk page, it seems that many editors are not happy with the page and the confusion on it. I split the articles which addresses some of the problems mentioned on the talk page, but both articles still need work. Vegaswikian 23:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also List of rock musicals and List of rock operas which break these out into two groups. Vegaswikian 23:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both the lists and the articles would seem to distinguish on a different basis: that rock operas are rock albums that tell a cohesive story whereas rock musicals are stage productions. This distinction makes more sense to me than the speaking/no speaking distinction. In that case, The Who's Tommy would be both, since it's been staged but Jesus Christ Superstar would not be a rock opera, despite the lack of dialogue since it was conceived as a stage show. I don't have any problem with separate categories if there's a consistent and objective distinction that we can articulate.-- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeI'm not aware of this as an important distinction. And the redirect in the name sapce suggest that those more aware of the issue treat it as one category. Certainly the talking is a red herring as indicated by Fidelio, Magic Flute and any number of famous operas --Peter cohen 16:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to abstain now that I've raid the comments of the original nominator about the different basis for distinction,--Peter cohen 06:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It is true that ambiguous works exist that blur the distinction between opera and musical theatre. And it is equally true that some people, for this reason and others, do not see a distinction between operas and musicals. However, a small amount of overlap between categories, consisting of somewhat ambiguous cases (in this case, an opera that contains short passages of spoken text or a musical that contains an unusually small amount of spoken text) is not sufficient to justify obliterating category distinctions. I think the truest path is to maintain the separate categories for works that are clearly one or the other and treat ambiguous cases on their own merits. By the by, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline saying that an ambiguous item that meets the criteria for inclusion in seemingly dichotomous categories can't carry both category labels; in this case, it's perfectly possible for a work that can be interpreted as either a rock opera or a rock musical to be categorised under both, and from the standpoint of navigation and searchability that seems intensely preferable. When in doubt, do the thing that causes the least fuss, and it seems to me that maintaining Category:Rock operas and Category:Rock musicals as distinct and coequal categories (i.e. neither the parent of the other) causes the least fuss. --7Kim 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per several above. The present contents of the category make a very poor case that this is a seperate category. Everything from Diamond Dogs to Rent (musical). Johnbod 22:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is misuse of a category a reason to delete or rename it? Vegaswikian 22:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • As I said, it doesn't help make the case the category is clearly defined or ditinct. Johnbod 22:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the lists serve to define the contents. Vegaswikian 23:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Or not, as in this case. Johnbod 23:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Does not make the case the category is (sic) clearly defined or distinct" does not equal "makes the case that the categories are not clearly defined or distinct", and so does not provide a justification for merging. This is therefore a non-answer to the question that was asked. So I reask it, and add a further one of my own, as I raised above: Does sloppiness on the part of well-intentioned editors in categorising articles (which can be remedied at any time by any editor with any interest in doing so, merely by changing the category tag) justify the drastic step of merging categories? --7Kim 23:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very likely yes. Wikipedia is a voluntary project, and if the volunteers don't understand or agree on definitions a category will cause a lot of hassle and be dangerously unreliable. Perebourne 17:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Precisely; there is a case to make that rock operas are something seperate (apart from a marketing name). The arguments of opposers above mostly concentrate on the absence of dialogue, which has been well rebutted, and if looking at the category contents doesn't give any clear idea, then what is left? Johnbod 23:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think an important point to make is that we should not let ourselves be blinded by the Rock portion of Rock (opera | musical). The distinction between "rock operas" and "rock musicals" is exactly the distinction between "(non-rock) operas" and "(non-rock) musicals", and the same ambiguities -- including a certain amount of definitional uncertainty and dispute -- exist in that distinction without anyone raising a fuss about seeking to merge the categories. Wikipedia categories should, ideally, reflect distinctions that exist in the real world, neither creating nor (especially) destroying them. That kind of close mapping to the external world is precisely what makes Wikipedia categories such a powerful navigational and organisational tool, but by the very nature of such things a certain amount of uncertainty is inevitable. Anyone familiar with the genres would find it uncontroversial to state that Tommy and The Wall are operas and The Rocky Horror Show and Grease are musicals -- for that reason alone the separate categories are valid. The fact that the works use rock as their musical idiom does not give cause to apply a different standard. --7Kim 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's funny. I would have said The Wall is a concept album. The article on it has been categorised as a rock opera, but the word "opera" does not appear anywhere in the body of the article. The article on Pink Floyd The Wall (film) does mention the Savoy Operas as an influence on the trial scene, but in the same sentence as Alice Adventures in Wonderland and the Brecht-Weill "musical dramas". (The operatic status of the latter is a subject of vigorous discussion in this topic and elsewhere.) None of the other articles mentioned in The Wall (Pink Floyd) use the word opera, though it will be interesting to see descriptions of the Broadway Show.
            • For that matter, Yes themselves never described Tales From Topographic Oceans as a rock symphony nor Close to the Edge as a rock sonata -- yet that is exactly what they are. Quibble all you like about The Wall and about the distinction (itself debatable) between a "concept album" and a "rock opera" -- the fact remains that there are works that are plainly regarded as rock operas and works that are plainly regarded as rock musicals, so my argument stands: the separate categories are valid and the existence of ambiguous and disputable cases does not of itself erase that validity. --7Kim 21:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You aren't convincing me. I find it hard to believe that a work for the forces available to a prog rock band complete with singer can be described as a sonata. It seems to me that you are using metaphors and thinking they describe a reality. For me, The Wall or any number of concept albums have more in common with a song cycle, cantata or oratorio than with opera, --Peter cohen 23:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I could easily convince you in precise musical term. It would be fun to sit down and talk with you about it over a pot of tea (I'm well-educated in music and love discussing it), but this line of discussion is completely outside the matter at hand.  :) --7Kim 18:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The distinction is subjective, and the attempt to make it is just not worthwhile. Perebourne 17:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There are two distinct parents. These categories should flow up to the proper parents. Merging will mis-classify a certain number of these articles. A merge is not the way to fix the definition of what belongs in these categories or the lists. If there is cleanup needed, it should be addressed at the source(s) and not by a well intentioned but ill advised category merge. Leaving this alone for now does no damage. Maybe the answer to to close this as no consensus and then drop a note to WP:MUSIC and ask them to cleanup the mess. Vegaswikian 00:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see Vegaswikian has put 'Rock operas' in the opera genres category, but that doesn't mean it belongs there. Opera is a broad church and on The Opera Project we include many hybrid forms in the opera genres list - but not rock opera! Please note that Rock opera is not listed by The Oxford Dictionary of Opera (John Warrack and Ewan West, 1992). The authoritative New Grove Dictionary of Opera' says of Rock Opera "Such works have little direct connection to opera as traditionally understood. They do not use operatically trained singers; the sound is amplified; some of the more intersting examples were never intended for live performance." I don't know if this merger will go through or not, but whatever happens Rock opera doesn't belong with opera. -- Kleinzach 00:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hmmm! I see you don't include Beijing opera either. Perhaps a rename to Category:Western classical opera is needed. Johnbod 00:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think that was a joke, but just in case it wasn't: the Chinese don't use the Italian word opera. Jingju (proper name) is one of the performing arts in its own right, and it has a considerably longer history than opera. -- Kleinzach 03:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A weak argument - the (for example) Germans don't use the same words as the English (or Italians) for plays, novels, paintings etc. These are nevertheless rightly categorised together, regardless of their name in their native languages. Johnbod 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Try this. Opera and 'Chinese Opera' have about as much in common as cheese and beancurd. -- Kleinzach 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no argument at all, not even a POV one. But here is not the place. Johnbod 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I agree; Category:Rock operas definitely doesn't belong as a subcategory of Category:Operas. It probably should be a subcategory of Category:Rock musicals. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - One thing we should take into account is that the term "rock opera" also includes rock albums which are designed to tell some kind of story when one listens to the whole album (see Tommy (rock opera), an album by The Who). These are often not actually musicals like Jesus Christ Superstar (and are never actually performed in a theater like a musical: they are no different characters, costumes, etc.). "Opera" is definitely a misnomer ("Rock oratorio" would probably be more appropriate when referring to the albums, rather than the musicals, but per WP:UCN, we should use whatever is most commonly used), but rock operas are definitely distinct from rock musicals. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would like to call on all participants in this discussion to recall that we are not here to argue over whether this or that work should be considered an opera; we are not here to argue over whether rock pieces should be labelled as operas at all; we are not here to argue over what opera is or what musical theatre is. All of this comes within hailing distance of soapboxery. We are here to discuss, and hopefully reach consensus on, whether the category Category:Rock operas should be merged into Category:Rock musicals, and I think the discussion has generally gotten caught up in side issues that do not serve the goal of reaching consensus. --7Kim 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As noted far above, my vote was firm opposition to merging, and it still is. In light of my last comment, let me support that vote with arguments on central issues (next indent mine):
  • The category distinction is valid because it is a distinction that is drawn in the real world: Works exist which are labelled as "rock operas", and works exist which are labelled "rock musicals", and the distinction between the two parallels the distinction between "operas" and "musicals", a distinction which no one to my knowledge has contested. Since the distinction is drawn in the real world (whether or not it should be drawn), obliterating it in Wikipedia seems undesirable in light of WP:UCN and the (admittedly philosophical) view that close mapping between the categorisations of the external world and the categorisations of Wikipedia is a useful thing. (And note: because the categorisation exists in the real world, to delete/merge the category merely assures that within a month or two someone not privy to this discussion will recreate the category that e feels is missing. This is part of the rationale for seeking close mapping.)
  • Merging categories is a drastic and difficult-to-reverse step that should be avoided unless no more casual remedy will address the issue raised (that is, after all, why merges require this process of discussion). The issue raised was: There seems to be no logical distinction b/w the two categories. Many articles are in both. I see no reason why any editor with enough understanding and motivation cannnot address this issue by editing category tags to recategorise articles into more logical sense, and perhaps inserting into both categories more explicit criteria for inclusion to guide later editors. Since a remedy short of merging exists, merging should be avoided.
  • Arguments about proposed "genetics" of the two categories (i.e. whether the relationship should be sibling or parent-and-child) are peripheral and relevant only in that they offer less-drastic alternatives to merging that may or may not address the issue raised by the nominator. --7Kim 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Operas and musicals are different forms with different styles, traditions, venues, performers, instruments, audiences and so on. Rock musicals and rock "operas" are all musicals, with the latter group receiving more pretentious marketing. Craig.Scott 23:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the rest of this discussion (my latest comment would suffice), you will see that this is not actually true: not all rock operas are staged at all. Some are merely rock albums which attempt to convey some sort of story, much like a song cycle. The fact is that the term "rock opera" is used in popular music circles, and it is distinct from the term "rock musical." Whether the term is a misnomer or not is a completely different matter, and irrelevant, per WP:UCN. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:58, 11 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide

Category:Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for the show article and character/episode subcats. Otto4711 13:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. but keep the subcats. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:13, 11 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Five original squares of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Five original squares of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization. Category is too small. evrik ^(talk) 13:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion of this subcategory is OK by me (category creator). First time I've ever created a category. I wasn't sure whether everyone else would agree to keep it, so I decided just to be bold and give it a go. However, I am going to informally tie the five original squares together, even if it is just by introducing some links to each other in the individual articles. I am creating an article for Centre Square (Philadelphia) at the moment, citing Weigley et al 1982 as principal ref. — Lumbercutter 13:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: As BrownHairedGirl suggested, I created a template instead. I like this option because it's very similar to the other templates seen on Philadelphia pages, such as North Philadelphia, Philadelphia skyscrapers, etc. Thanks all. — Lumbercutter 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and thanks to Lumbercutter for being so nice about it! There are various other ways of tying the articles together, but the approach which I would like best would probably be a short article on the Five original squares of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Se what works, though; a template might be good too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a template seems like a much better approach, and original creator seems quite happy to go along with that suggestion. Looks like a case where everyone wins! :) Xtifr _tälk 23:29, 9 June 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. — CharlotteWebb 05:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish politicians by office to Category:Political office-holders in Sweden

Rename, per convention of Category:Political office-holders by country. LukeHoC 12:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)))[reply]

• Rename per convention, per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 7 June 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 (mostly because it would make no sense to delete only one category out of a larger set). — CharlotteWebb 05:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:English child singers

Category:English child singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No definition of category, which includes toddlers to teenagers (and both pop and classical) in its nominations. Pointless category in the circumstances, unless anyone can think of a way of making it precise. Smerus 08:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in the absence of a wider discussion of the many child singer by nationality categories. Not seeing why this one is any more egregious than any of the others. Otto4711 12:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Part of a wider system, and not a problem. Haddiscoe 12:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, without prejudice against a broader nomination including related categories. This is a subcategory of Category:British child singers, which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Child singers. As long as those exist, I see no reason whatsoever to delete this one specifically. (While I'm at it, slap nom with a wet trout for his POV attempt to divide music into "pop" and "classical", but that's a side issue.) Nom does raise some interesting points, but they should be discussed in the context of all these categories, not just one isolated subcategory. Xtifr _tälk 12:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The "child singer" is a well-known phenomenon, and being a child singer is a defining characteristic. The fuzziness round the edges is trivial in relation to the significance of the category. LukeHoC 12:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a child is usually a temporary condition, and many former child musicians have gone on to achieve far greater fame as adults (Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder and Steve Winwood are just a few examples). While not relevant to this debate, I would have serious questions about your claim that this is a defining characteristic in a broader debate. Xtifr _tälk 23:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per LukeHoC and particularly per Otto4711 and Xtifr. If someone thinks we shouldn't categorise child singers, then nominate Category:Child singers and all its subcats rather than singling out this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Oppose deletion per above. It's part of a bigger issue. Doczilla 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. -- Kleinzach 06:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepPer BrownHairedGirl --Peter cohen 10:10, 10 June 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, withdrawn by nominator and no other supporters. Procedural close by non-admin. Bencherlite 09:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:English musical groups to Category:English popular music groups

Category:English musical groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:English popular music groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The category consists only of pop music groups, inhibiting categorization of 'classical' ensembles and groups; Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom is trying to establish robust category structure on WP principles for all British music. Smerus 08:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose: The Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians already has well-established guidelines at WP:MUSCAT, used on many thousands of articles, which cover musicians and musical groups of all nationalities quite well. Coming up with a separate scheme just for British musicians and groups strikes me as an outrageously bad idea. (I also utterly reject the suggestion that music can simply be divided into "popular" and "classical". That POV exists almost entirely in the minds of classical music fans. Most of the entries there are not pop music.) Anyway, just create Category:English classical music groups, and make it a child of Category:English musical groups by genre and you should be fine. (It should technically be a child of Category:Classical musical groups as well, but it seems that nobody has yet created that child of Category:Musical groups by genre. It's up to you if you want to create it, but apparently Wikipedia simply doesn't have that many articles on classical musical groups yet.) That should fully solve the complaint, while still more-or-less complying with the existing standard. Xtifr _tälk 11:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per Xtifr. Merely because Category:English musical groups could do with being properly diffused to new genre subcategories doesn't mean that the answer is the "short-cut" of renaming it to "pop" on the basis that non-classical=pop. It would also make an interesting, and wrong, hierarchy for (e.g.) Category:English marching bands, which is hardly a "pop music" group category. Bencherlite 12:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Any changes would need to be global. Haddiscoe 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Pop" music has a narrower meaning that the nominator implies "popular music" to have. "Popular music" is not part of the category system, and rightly so. LukeHoC 12:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Doczilla 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the originator of this proposal. I have now created Category:English classical music groups so this debate could be speedy closed Thanks to all for their comments and to Xtifr for his suggestion, which I have adopted. --Smerus 08:50, 8 June 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. Closing admin rationale, if anyone is interested: category is to restrictive and only has one article, which happens to be a copyvio. --Kbdank71 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Primates of the Jerusalem Greek Orthodox Patriarchate and Epitropia of the Holy Sepulcher in America into Category:Eastern Orthodox patriarchs of Jerusalem

Category:Primates of the Jerusalem Greek Orthodox Patriarchate and Epitropia of the Holy Sepulcher in America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Eastern Orthodox patriarchs of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The two categories are basically redundant. The "Primates" title is hardly ever used for these people, while the "patriarchs" title is used. Therefore, I recommend merging these articles into the "patriarch" category. Dr. Submillimeter 07:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)>[reply]

• Comment: Let's be careful before carrying out this decision. I know nothing about the Eastern Orthodox Church, but I do know how touchy people can get about religion, down to and including killing each other over how many fingers they use to cross themselves. I propose we hear an expert opinion, from someone well versed in the Church, on the difference between patriarchs and primates (and epitropia?), before deciding how "basically redundant" these categories actually are. Even if the nominator has this kind of knowledge, an independent opinion would be nice. I wouldn't want to see this decision made and only then discover that there is a subtle but vital difference between the two. --7Kim 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Abstain pending further information and discussion per above comment. --7Kim 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. We don't need duplicate categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Firmly Oppose. Reading the individual pages in the two categories shows that Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem is a highly specific, venerated, and honoured title, with a line of succession to 451 AD, to which Archbishop Damaskinos of Jaffa, the sole member of the "Primates" category, cannot lay claim. Merging the two categories would therefore place him in a category to which he emphatically does not belong. There are probably very good arguments for deleting the first category, but that's not at issue here. Incidentally, see Primate (religion), particularly §2. --7Kim 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have struck out the "merge" recommendation, as this person apparently is not a Patriarch. However, the current title is horribly confusing. Could someone suggest a better category for Archbishop Damaskinos of Jaffa? Maybe we can just place him in Category:Greek Orthodox bishops. (By the way, the category tree under Category:Primates of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem makes no sense.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the long and confusing title is one of the strong arguments for deletion I mentioned. An "and" in the category name is a good indicator of either overinclusion or overrestriction -- and in this case it's clearly overrestriction, as the number of men who have been both must be very small, and in fact, as the case turns out, zero. The one person who is in the category does not belong in it. In a sense, the motivation to merge was quite correct -- by the definition of "primate" I linked to, the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem is Primate of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem (correct title, and here we have another argument for deletion). Oh, what the hell -- I'll nominate it for deletion and make the arguments there.  :) --7Kim 20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments The Archbishop Damaskinos of Jaffa seems actually to hold 3 (at least) distinct posts/titles; he is cited chronologically as an Archimandrite, an Archbishop, an Exarch and an Epitropos (but not patriarch of anywhere, so far). 7Kim seems to have acquired some insight into this via diligent reading - is there some umbrella term that would usefully include him + the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs of Jerusalem without error? Primates of the Eastern Orthodox Church(es)? (I agree that the proposed merge doesn't work but that delete would be no loss as there is just 1 person. Moreover I don't see that he is a Primate of the Jerusalem Greek Orthodox Patriarchate so the category under question should be empty.) -- roundhouse 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding these people hard to work out: to judge from Jerusalem Patriarchate in America, Archbishop Damaskinos of Jaffa might well be 'Patriarch of the Jerusalem Patriarchate in America of the Greek Orthodox Church' (which I am finding difficult to re-word elegantly) so perhaps Category:Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church does the job. -- roundhouse 20:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the category name is much too long, but it needs some one who knows about the senior episcopal offices of the Greek Orthodox Church to be able to resolve this issue. What does the man use as his title in practice? - I have not researched this myself. He no doubt had a predecessor and will one day have a successor. They will all no doubt be Greek Orthodox Patriarchs, but so will the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, etc. Accordingly a series of separate categories is needed. I express no view as to what the outcome may be, but fear this may be a case of, "Folls rusg iun where angels fear to tread". Peterkingiron 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment he is certainly not a Patriarch, and I don't think he is a Primate (capital P - head of a Church - the Patriarch is that). He is a primate, and the e-thing, which don't need categorising, as Archbishop is an equivalent/senior title to these. I think something like Category:Greek Othodox Archbishops in America (Jerusalem Patriarchate) is best. NB:There is also Phillip (Saliba) - Greek Othodox Archbishop of New York, and Metropolitan of America for the Greek Odx Antiochan Patriarch. His article says he is a Primate, & may well be right. I mention him to show the difficulties with using plain "Greek Orthodox". Johnbod 23:23, 6 June 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 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:European dogs to Category:Dog breeds originating in Europe

Category:European dogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Dog breeds originating in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All other categories of dog breeds by geographical origin (e.g. "in Canada", "in Africa", "in Norway") use the "... originating in ..." convention; proposed new name for this category is for the sake of consistency. 7Kim 02:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator. --7Kim 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename To follow the by-nationality convention, though deletion would also be acceptable, as this is pretty much a redundant tier in the categorisation of dogs. LukeHoC 12:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had considered deletion. It is redundant, but it seems to be a case in which a redundant category that only contains subcategories preserves the logical organisation, and thus the function, of the category structure at a miniscule cost in Wikipedia resources (the cat page itself plus 40 bytes on each of the subcategory pages). There is such a thing as too much efficiency.  :) --7Kim 14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but also consider "European dog breeds"? Something shorter perhaps? Bulldog123 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad idea at all. It would make sense. However, since the intent of the proposed name change was to bring the categories of dog breeds by geographical origin to a single naming convention, it doesn't address the original issue unless all members of the category family are renamed to "[locational adjective] dog breeds", and that's a discussion for another day. --7Kim 18:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "European dog breeds" is too vague. Perebourne 17:28, 9 June 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Family Ties

Category:Family Ties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed based on the material in it. Otto4711 00:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge "Family Ties characters" into "Family Ties," and keep. It's best to keep these articles together. 69.201.182.76 20:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the characters subcat should not be disturbed, because it is part of the extensive Category:Television characters by series structure. Otto4711 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why is it that TV series can't be navigated by series? If Family Ties characters exists, then logically, it should be long to Family Ties, and be navigable by the TV series. 70.55.87.222 18:22, 9 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Even Stevens

Category:Even Stevens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - one article, one subcat, canceled show, category not needed. Otto4711 00:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:12, 8 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Krystala

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - after moving all of the character articles to a character subcat, the remaining show article does not need a category. Otto4711 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:13, 8 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Cheers

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - all material is well interlinked through the texts of the various articles. The category is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My only concern here was the spinoffs. I created a subcat Category:Cheers spin-offs under Category:Television spin-offs to house the two spinoff articles here. Should be ok to delete this category. Dugwiki 17:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops, I thought I'd created that spinoff cat already. But I was thinking of the Family Ties spin-offs cat I made instead. Otto4711 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:13, 8 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Black Books

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for this material. Interlinked through the articles and the navtemplate. Otto4711 00:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Red Deathy 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:14, 8 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Boston Legal

Category:Boston Legal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for the material in it; everything is interlinked through the navtemplate. Otto4711 00:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant with navbox. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:14, 8 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Battlestar Galactica actors

Category:Battlestar Galactica actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is not needed to house the two list articles and the existence of the category will encourage people to improperly categorize individual actors in it. Otto4711 00:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete performer by performance category, per WP:OC#Performers_by_performance. Doczilla 05:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcategorization of actors by series. --tjstrf talk 07:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Doczilla. Pavel Vozenilek 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla. Carlossuarez46 17:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteAgree with nominator. Lists can go in main category. --Peter cohen 17:52, 8 June 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.