- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Big Four (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Neologism, small category with little chance of expansion, redundant (eg, Category:Grunge), confusing (other uses of "Big Four"), generally bad idea. ChrisB 19:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as misleading neologism with no chance of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The category's name is an ambiguous neologism. Dr. Submillimeter 21:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Possibly a suitable case for a template. Wilchett 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, silly. A category self-limited to four bands, using a title thought up by a fan one day. Oh dear. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've listened to these bands since they all came out and have never heard this expression applied to them before. It makes sense, but it's too narrow a field and a redundant neologism (which, forgive me if I'm wrong, is discouraged?) lincalinca 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Doczilla 19:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete there is presently nothing in the category. Rgds, - Trident13 12:06, 1 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Djurgårdens IF players
[edit]Category:Kappa Alpha Psi brothers
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Kappa Alpha Psi brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Keep This category serves as a convenient grouping for notable individuals that share a common bond by being members of a Greek letter fraternity User:Pettiebone 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per recreation against CfD earlier this month. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - We already decided to delete these categories. This recreation of deleted content, while unintentional, is disruptive. (The editor appears to be relatively new to Wikipedia, so he may not have been aware of the previous debate or Wikipedia's policies.) If necessary, I can cut and paste my rationale from the previous debate. Dr. Submillimeter 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - The editor who recreated this also added the category back to all the places where it had just been deleted from. I think they were quite aware of what they were doing. 148.63.236.141 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would be interested in knowing your rationale. I noticed that the page was missing when I clicked on a link on the category's main page. What debate was this, and who participated? User:Pettiebone 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The link on Kappa Alpha Psi under "Famous Kappa Alpha Psi Members" should be deleted if this category is also deleted. The link will apparently prompt users to recreate this category. Dr. Submillimeter 21:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a defining characteristic, ie no-one has an article because they belong to Kappa Alpha Psi. Wilchett 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete less defining than the masons we deleted earlier. Carlossuarez46 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-defining. Wimstead 12:06, 1 April 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:'N Sync (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - per discussion below in the band members CFD, putting this one up. As with so many other eponymous categories, the lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the subject articles and there is insufficient material to warrant the category. The subcats are already housed in the appropriate parent cats. Otto4711 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per discussions below. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 18:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The umbrella category is useful for navigating between various 'N Sync categories and should therefore be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 19:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for its navigational value as a parent category for the subcategories. This is standard practice, even for comparatively minor musicians and groups, see Category:Categories named after musicians, and even where all relevant articles are subcategorized as members, albums, and songs. It makes little sense to require the reader to navigate from a category to an article in that category, then to a second article linked in the infobox of the first, then to a category link at the bottom of the second article, just to get from "songs" to "albums". — CharlotteWebb 06:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It has apparently been standard practice to create an eponymous category for musicians to house sub-cats for albums and songs. However, when categories named for musicians (or actors) have been coming up for deletion they have been deleted. Consensus seems to be moving away from categories named for musicians in the absence of significant material that can not be easily interlinked within the main article for the musician. Otto4711 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the eponymous categories originally also directly contained members of the bands, as well as anything directly related to the band but which wasn't a song or album. But a handful of them such as Category:The Rolling Stones became crowded, and Mike Selinker began moving the "members" of each band into their own subcategory (including the less crowded band categories, for the sake of consistency). I don't see any benefit of deleting any of these categories, and limiting navigation to the "links in the main article" creates very poor accessibility, as the main article is not a member of the albums/songs/members categories, only the main eponymous category, if one exists. Maybe you would rather follow three links than one, but not everyone has a high-speed connection, or unlimited patience. — CharlotteWebb 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most people who are interested in a band are probably going to go to the band's article first. In this case 'N Sync. If they're interested in the albums or singles of the band, there's a link in that article to 'N Sync discography. The band and discography articles also contain navtemplates. Otto4711 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete To reply to some of the above comments, a musician or band does not need an eponymous category for categories which are under Category:Songs by artist or Category:Albums by artist. It is not, contrary to Charlotte's opinion, "standard practice" nor does it create an issue with navigational problems for low-speed internet. The reason is because almost all the readers interested in, for example, finding out about the band's songs or albums or members are first going to click in the Search box and type the band's name. That article then provides the links to the songs and albums as well as the song and album subcategories. In fact the only unusual item in the 'N Sync category is Category:'N Sync members, which is in effect the same as categorizing people by professional organization membership. That too is not done for most (not all) organizations but is instead handle either in the main article for the organization or as a related list article.
- So the bottom line is that if the only items in a musical artist's or band's eponymous category are songs and albums and members there is no need for an eponymous category. They are handled sufficiently by the main article and by the related subcategories of Category:Songs by artist and Category:Albums by artist respectively. Dugwiki 15:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Part of the deletion would, of course, mean that the main article's category tags should be altered to replace this with the corresponding categories of Category:'N Sync songs and Category:'N Sync albums. Dugwiki 15:40, 2 April 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename Category:Group C to Category:Group C racing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Group C to Category:Group C cars
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Group C is a class of racecar and the category only contains articles on cars in the class; the name should reflect that. Recury 17:49, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Famous bulls
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Famous bulls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant category because Category:Famous bovines and Category:Famous cattle already exist. No other subcategory of Category:Famous animals has a seperate category just for males of the species. (Also, "bull" could refer to male elephants, whales, etc). Masaruemoto 17:46, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Classical music venues in London
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At present it appears to be a grouping of words ending in "-onym". There probably is linguistic value to this but the category needs a rename to reflect that. >Radiant< 16:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above and also for violating the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:NOT#DICT. I might be alone here, but I think that this category, Category:Suffixes, all the various 'words and phrases' categories, etc are profoundly unencyclopaedic. They treat words from the wrong POV—not as concepts in an encyclopaedia, meriting discussion and consideration as concepts, but as words. This linguistic POV properly belongs in a dictionary, but in an encyclopedia?
- Xdamrtalk 22:57, 31 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:'N Sync members
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Small and unlikely to grow. Upmerge to Category:'N Sync. >Radiant< 16:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Category:'N Sync members and Category:'N Sync I'll up the ante by saying that both this category and the parent category Category:'N Sync should be deleted. Category:'N Sync is an unnecessary eponymous people category as described in WP:OCAT#Eponymous categories for people because the main article for 'N Sync already acts as sufficient navigation for the included articles. The subcategories of albums and songs are likewise already properly included in Category:Albums by artist and Category:Songs by artist and thus do not need the additional eponymous category to be effective. Thus I recommend deleting this and also recommend nominating Category:'N Sync for deletion. Dugwiki 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - why is Category:'N Sync members not a legitimate child of Category:Musicians by band? I agree that Category:'N Sync should be deleted. Otto4711 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is part of a larger scheme in Category:Musicians by band. The category should be kept for organizational purposes. Dr. Submillimeter 17:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dr. Submillimeter. Annandale 17:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the Doc. But the umbrella cat goes (voted above). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 18:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I just made about 300 of these band member categories because I expected the deletion of most of these band categories, and some category needs to unite the band members. So Category:Musicians by band becomes the home for all these group categories, rather than Category:Categories named after musicians. In addition, many of the categories like Category:The Rolling Stones had the members jumbled among many other articles, and these are much cleaner.--Mike Selinker 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both per Mike Selinker and per my comment in the other section above. — CharlotteWebb 06:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - I fully agree with the deletion of Category:'N Sync members. Also, if there is a project to categorise band members by band, why have we deleted numerous television series by actor categories? Some bands change members quicker than soap series. The next move will to to add back singers. Delete this trivia before it gets to as big a problem as actors by television series. Rgds, - Trident13 12:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some bands may be relatively unstable but even in the most unstable of bands there is little likelihood that the category will accumulate the numbers of largely irrelevant articles that an Actors by series category would, with those categories' tendency to accumulate anyone who ever spoke a line in a single episode. Regardless, the Actors by series categories were deleted not because of anything to do with the contents of the categories but because of the clutter that was generated on actors' articles from appearing in small parts in multiple projects and because in most cases the people so categorized were not defined by the role. Otto4711 12:55, 3 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from St. Thomas
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename Category:People from St. Thomas to Category:People from St. Thomas, Ontario. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:People from St. Thomas, Ontario, to match St. Thomas, Ontario, and avoid confusion with Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. -- Prove It (talk) 14:18, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge Category:Fictional characters with regenerative powers into Category:Fictional characters with accelerated healing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Fictional characters with regenerative powers. It's the same thing. It could be argued to be a weaker and stronger version of the same thing, but there is no clear dividing line either way. Additionally, the cats are very small. >Radiant< 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (no objection to merging the other way, either) >Radiant< 09:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be merged the other way; as I understand how these are usually handled in fiction (i.e., comic books), regeneration is an extreme form of accelerated healing, so the latter would be inclusive of the former. Postdlf 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse-merge into older cat.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse-merge I'm assuming that a reverse-merge means putting the regenerative powers category into the acceletated healing one. Also, Bbth cats were depopulated, so right now, it'll only take a while for them to regain their past articles.--Piemanmoo 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge from "Regen" At best, the Regen cat would be a sub of accelerated healing. If the resulting cat is overly large after the re-pop (hopefully removing chaff) then splitting the characters that specifically name regen into a sub would make sense. I'd argue splitting out by publisher first though to actually see if the regen cat is need though. - J Greb 17:33, 30 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge into Category:Fictional characters with accelerated healing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the above. There's way too few characters here to make it meaningful to subcat by fictional universe. >Radiant< 14:18, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Brooklyn Bridge
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Brooklyn Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, an article grouping masquerading as a category. Its architect is included, making this an "artist by work" category for him, analogous to the "performer by performance" categories we regularly delete. Others are more tangentially related, such as the terrorist convicted of plotting to destroy the bridge ("terrorist by intended target"?), and a television series named after the bridge but not about it. Brooklyn Bridge itself should include all of these, and explain why they are relevant; it's just not a defining classification, however. Categories should not just duplicate "what links here" or internal article links. Otherwise, every notable structure of a reasonable age could have its own category by such a standard. Postdlf 14:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not totally sure whether this should be kept or deleted, but it is not all that unusual to have a category for a very notable subject and then put articles that are just "related" to it in it like this. Recury 14:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is unusual for bridges, and it is disfavored when the category is not a defining relationship for any of these included articles, nor are they related in the same way. By the simple "related to" standard, any article could be placed in any other article that discusses it, and any article with a sufficient number of internal links would have a category. By contrast, see Category:United States Capitol for an example of an appropriate category for a structure; all of the included entries are significantly defined by their relationship to the Capitol. No people are included, only Capitol-specific objects, features, agencies, etc. Postdlf 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's unusual for bridges, which is why I didn't just vote keep. It does seem odd, but I am just pointing out that I disagree with your assertion that just because things in a category aren't all related in the same way (which is what your initial post strongly implies) that that is a good reason for deletion. For broad topics, they will usually have subcategories for the ways people or things are related to them; this isn't a broad topic, so dumping them all in the main category is the next logical step. The Brooklyn Bridge may not have enough related articles to warrant a category, though. Recury 15:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnecessary eponymous category for the bridge. Reasoning is similar to that for WP:OCAT#Eponymous categories for people, namely that all the articles in this category can easily be linked from the main article about that bridge, making the category redundant and unnecessary for navigation. Dugwiki 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The topics should be linked through the individual articles where appropriate, not through a category. Grouping all the articles together like this is inappropriate, as the subjects are only tenuously connected to each other through the bridge. For example, the architect that built the Brooklyn Bridge has nothing to do with the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting aside from the connection to the bridge itself. Dr. Submillimeter 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wilchett 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Doczilla 19:40, 30 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Level 42 singles
[edit]Category:German cultural icons
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:German cultural icons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as subjective. The more readily definable category Category:National symbols of Germany exists, and is one of over 100 such categories. Other countries don't have "cultural icon" categories. Honbicot 13:45, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wal-Mart people
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Wal-Mart people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - most of the people in the category are members of the Walton family, rendering the category largely redundant to Category:Walton family. The rest of the category is for Current and former Wal-Mart executives, which is problematic because people an and do work for a variety of employers over the course of a career (similar to deleted categories for performers by performance and television personalities by network). Otto4711 13:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep People don't tend to have notable involvement in more than two or three companies, and in many cases they only have one. The article is not an adequate substitute for the category for navigational purposes as the names of the top people at the company change, and past and present people will be scattered about the article, even if they are all present. Honbicot 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but remove the Walton family members from this category since Category:Walton family is a subcategory of it. I think the largest retailer in the world can probably have a category for people associated with it. There are likely many other notable people who don't yet have articles that would go in here. Recury 14:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Recury, but remove duplicate categorisation of members of the Walton family, and restrict category to those who role in Wal-Mart was notable. This category not should be used for, say, a senator who who had a teenage summer job as a Wal-Mart shelf-stacker. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Keep & remove Waltons, per Recury & BHG Johnbod 15:55, 31 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:DreamWorks people
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:DreamWorks people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - the category is unnecessary for navigation, as each of the categorized people are linked to each other and the main DreamWorks article. The category's existence invites the same sort of category abuse that has plagued other similar categories. Otto4711 13:29, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:FBMC Spam Cats
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Health savings account administrator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Health Reimbursement Account administrator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Self-funded health care administrators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Employee benefit administrators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Third party administrator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:401(k) administrators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Flexible spending account administrators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete all - Single article categories created for an article FBMC that is currently under AfD. See also this discussion regarding one category also created at the same time. I am sure some are useful and legit, but currently unused so delete without prejudice against recreation as needed. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:10, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Basketball players by position
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename Category:Basketball power forwards to Category:Power forwards (basketball) and Category:Basketball centers to Category:Centers (basketball). Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a relatively new set of categories:[reply]
- Category:Point guards (cf. Point guard) good
- Category:Shooting guards (cf. Shooting guard) good
- Category:Small forwards (cf. Small forward) good
- Category:Basketball power forwards (cf. Power forward (basketball)) → Category:Power forwards (basketball)
- Category:Basketball centers (cf. Center (basketball)) → Category:Centers (basketball)
The latter two are prefixed with "basketball" simply because "power forwards" also exist in hockey, and "centers" can refer to dozens of things. They should be moved to Category:Power forwards (basketball) and Category:Centers (basketball) respectively, to match the corresponding articles, and because the word "basketball" is a disambiguation, not part of the name of a player's position (this should be obvious from the names of the other three positions). If the extra words would be unnecessary in the absence of other meanings, which they would be, they should be in parentheses. — CharlotteWebb 10:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Basketball power forwards and Category:Basketball centers - The corresponding articles are named center (basketball) and power forward (basketball). The categories should be renamed to match the articles. Dr. Submillimeter 12:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. I'm not greatly exercised either way, but there's no particular advantage to using this style of disambiguation in categories, and the phrase "basketball center" is by no means unknown to prosekind, e.g. [1]. So it seems a perfectly acceptable, and indeed stylistically preferable, alternative. BTW, I also wondered if disambiguation (of either sort) is actually necessary for power fowards at all: in hockey it seems to be less of a position, and more of a descriptor, thus I'm not sure there's likely to be a need for a category for those. Alai 15:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The discussion at power forward (ice hockey) supports Alai's comment. However, power forward is a disambiguation page, and it is conceivable that a power forward category could be created for ice hockey players (as a list has already been created), so at the very least, some type of disambiguation is needed. Dr. Submillimeter 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? I can't lay my hands on the applicable guideline right this instant, but I'm fairly sure that in must contexts having a "<page> (disambiguator)" where there's no existing "<page>" is regarded as poor form. Nor can I find anything particular to categories that would suggest otherwise. Alai 19:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, that sentence means "center Glen Davis of LSU Basketball" not "basketball center Glen Davis of LSU", and the phrase "basketball center" more commonly refers to a facility in which basketball is played or practiced, see SMU Breaks Ground on New Basketball Center, The Donoher Basketball Center, an addition to the southwest corner of the Arena, indoor dedicated basketball center with four full-size courts, etc. Parenthetical disambiguation is not unusual in category titles. It is typically used to match categories with their eponymous articles, for example: Category:Football (soccer), Category:Georgia (U.S. state), Category:Genesis (band). — CharlotteWebb 17:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd put that in the category of "phrase with theoretically ambiguous associative parsing that means much the same whichever way one reads it", but OK, here's an example that can only be read in the way I suggest: [2]. I take your point about the ambiguity in the other direction, though it seems unlikely to cause that confusion in practice (any more than your suggestion would, where it also in theory could). I'm not saying it's not permissible to use parenthical disambiguation, I'm just saying it's largely pointless and an unnecessary stylistic worsening in cases where there's another available phrase, with a natural reading. Category:Soccer football, Category:Football, the one also known as soccer, Category:The band Genesis or the like not being especially attractive alternatives in the cases you mention). Alai 19:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support nomination Mayumashu 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename 4&5 per nom. --After Midnight 0001 17:12, 4 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Francis Xavier
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Francis Xavier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The category has been around for a while, yet only has one entry. It should be either populated or deleted. Gentgeen 09:19, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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.--Mike Selinker 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In an earlier discussion about "murdered Iraqi children" it was suggested to consider the entire (rather small) tree rather than one member. This categorization scheme is somewhat arbitrary in that it has an unclear inclusion criterion, since there is not an unambiguous and clear answer to the question of how old a victim must be to be considered a "child". Is it 12 years or less? Fifteen? Eighteen? Might it differ by country? The borderline is just far too wide and vague. >Radiant< 08:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Delete as this undefinable characteristic is often used for pushing POV. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia appears to contain too many categories on how people died. This category does not seem necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 13:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a fundamental subcategory of Category:murder victims. The definitional problem is a mere quibble. Honbicot 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "mere quibble." The lack of definition of "child" is often used to bend statistics and push POVs. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The statistical point is irrelevant as categories are navigational tools, not statistical devices. Anyone who counts entries in wikipedia categories as a way of conducting statistical research about real world issues is misguided in all cases, so that doesn't separate this category from others. I really don't see that POV concerns with regard to whether an article is in one of these categories or not are of importance, and no evidence that they are has been presented. Honbicot 14:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstood what I said about statistics. The concern is where do you define the line of what is a child and what isn't? As noted above, it's not even consistent among states, never mind nations. I am saying you can move the threshold of "child" to push POVs. I can say, "there are less children dropping out of high school in Baltimore" and then define a child as sixteen or under (if you are wondering, Baltimore allows 16YOs to drop out). Or I can say, "less children are getting their diploma or equivalent" and define "child" as 18 or under. By manipulating the very fuzzy definition of what a child is, I can push either POV. Why can't 19YOs legally drink (in the US)? Are they children? Apparently, they're not full fledged adults. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and upmerge into Category:Murder victims Honbicot claims above that this is a "fundamental" subcategory of Category:Murder victims, but I'm not convinced it is. Other crime categories are not divided between "adult" and "child", even though I'm sure some of the victims of robbery and assault and other crimes are children. So unless a compelling argument can be made for exactly why it's actually fundamental for murder victims specifically to be subdivided into children and adults, my recommendation is to delete and upmerge. Dugwiki 16:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If this category is deleted there will be no way to include child murder victims in category:Children unless the articles are added individually. Annandale 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and define cutoff age. Chris 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Child murder is widely recognised as a subject in its own right. "Child murder" gets 398,000 google hits, while "adult murder" gets 890, which is a ratio of 447:1. Child murder has an article, as does infanticide, but adult murder is a red link. There are several books about child murder on Amazon, both popular and academic. Wilchett 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as defining attribute; the fact they a child was murdered is likely to be the main reason why there is wikipedia article in them in the first. It's clearly a notable topic per Wilchett, and the definitional problem is correctly addressed by Abberley2: a child is a child if he or she is legally a minor in the jurisdiction where he or she lives. We don't need a standardised cutoff point to make it useful to categorise together those who had the commonality of being regarded as children at the time of their murder. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Abberley2, Wilchett and BrownHairedGirl, and do not impose an arbitary cut off-point. Haddiscoe 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and upmerge into Category:Murder victims. There hasn't been a proposed criterion yet that would work. A 17-year-old is not a "child", anywhere, no matter where they live, so using "legally a minor" is completely wrong. "A minor" is not the same as "a child". Furthermore, I believe RevRagnarok is correct that this is primarily a POV category, and not actually useful because of the arbitrary definitions of "child". — coelacan — 19:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No-one has presented a single shred of evidence that this category has been used to promote some non-neutral POV in even one single case. For myself, I can't even guess what the problematic POV is supposed to be. Wilchett 02:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If we need to appeal to the victim's jurisdictional residence to determine whether they are a child, then the category's inability to incorporate and present that context will prevent it from having any real or stable meaning. Further, I agree with Coelacan that "minor" is not synonymous with "child," which leaves us without any objective standard. At the very least, replace with annotated lists, so that way the victim's status as a "child" can be contextualized and sourced. But separating out child victims seems sensationalistic to me regardless. Postdlf 20:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The age issue is no more a valid reason for deleting this category than for deleting this category than Category:Children or any other of its numerous subcategories. This is a defining characteristic in most cases. There is no reason to suppose that there is any POV pushing going on or that the age issue has created any practical problems. Child murder is written about as a distinct subject all the time. AshbyJnr 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These categories may be a little fuzzy around the edges, but then so are lots of other categories, including some prominent ones like Category:American culture and its siblings, but no one has made a convincing case that a slight fuzziness is unacceptable in this instance. Wimstead 12:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A useful category to have, and often a very valid reason on why a certain Wikipedia article is in existence. If it is very unclear an age cut off point can be defined. Camaron1 | Chris 19:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not merge into Category:Murder victims. That category should have no articles in it. I don't think there's any other easy way to do this than "Murdered children," but I'm open to alternatives.--Mike Selinker 06:41, 3 April 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.
Category:Grocer's Encyclopedia
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was modify to categorise talk pages as per other members of Category:Attribution templates at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 24, renaming to Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Grocer's encyclopedia. Still looking for a solution to the original CFD noted. The current bad plan, although technically simple, involves circa 60,000 changes (but fewer edits). If anyone wants to take this, or any of the others, to DRV or to otherwise debate the whole issue of attribution categories, there's plenty of time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Grocer's Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Following the recent deletion of source categories, here is another. Delete Peta 06:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps CFD needs some kind of scheme to deal with situations like this, where the underlying principle of a type of categorisation is being discussed yet individual instances of that type continue to be raised while the main discussion is ongoing? I dare say this is not procedurally valid, but given WP:IAR etc, I would suggest that this is tied to the March 24 discussion.
- Xdamrtalk 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you look at the debate of the 24th, linked to above, you will see that there is considerable support for considering these categories to be internal categorisation. Such categorisation is usually restricted to the article's talk page rather than the article itself. Do you agree or disagree, are you still in favour of deleting or do you favour re-purposing so that these categories only categorise article talk pages?
- Xdamrtalk 12:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, the debate of the 24th has closed with consensus that by-source categories ought to be kept and moved to talk pages—there is really no reason why this should be treated any differently. --Xdamrtalk 22:19, 31 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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: hippocratic merge of both to Category:Former women's universities and colleges. There's consensus for some change, but lots of options, so I picked the least narrow option. When they're merged, someone can renominate for listification.--Mike Selinker 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Former women's colleges to Category:Former women's universities and colleges in the United States that became coeducational
- Merge, The two categories overlap completely. The latter also includes a couple of additional items. Arguably, the former can be deleted instead of merged; the end-result would be the same.Vbd (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom and can the word "former" be knocked off the other category? Otto4711 07:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification - merge/rename to Category:Former women's universities and colleges in the United States.--Vbd (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both to Category:Formerly women-only universities and colleges in the United States. This is shorter than Otto4711's proposal, and unlike Vbd's revised suggestion it doesn't imply that the these are former colleges. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge all in question into Category:Former women's colleges as this allows for a global category, not a niche, USA only one. lincalinca 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More on this, I think that using "former" and "that became" is tautology. to use the title "Category:Women's universities and colleges that became coeducational" or better yet "Category:Gender specific tertiary institutions that became coeducational" or something to that effect would be more appropriate in my mind, as this then includes boys colleges as well.
- lincalinca 06:25, 31 March 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.
Category:Islamic science
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename Category:Islamic science to Category:Islam and science. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Islamic science to Category:Islam and science
- It is corrected now--Sefringle 02:01, 30 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Classic American Cars
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Classic American Cars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Inherently POV. Dhartung
- Well, there probably should be more criteria noted by what constitutes a "classic" car. I know, at least at one time, that any auto over 25 years old becomes deemed one and it can have more lenient regulations on it (ie smog checks). I do not think that the cars listed so far would be disputed as being classic but I can see where it could be considered subjective. I would say any notable car before 1970 would definately be considered classic. MrMurph101 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Classic car does provide some definitions. Vegaswikian 05:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if kept it needs to be renamed to conform with capitalization guidelines. This should also be a subcat of Category:Classic vehicles. Otto4711 07:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The main article for Category:Classic vehicles is classic car. The first sentence of classic car says, "Classic car is a term frequently used to describe an older car, but the exact meaning is subject to serious differences in opinion." The term is clearly too vague to use for categorization. It would be more realistic to categorize cars by year built rather than by this system. (Category:Classic vehicles should also be deleted.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Abberley2 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, one definition is too subjective and the other (over 25 years old) isn't a good way to categorize things. Recury 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reminds me of the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 4#Category:Fine dining discussion. Both Fine Dining and Classic Cars are subjective terms with no particular objective industry wide standard to use for inclusion. Both also can be used primarily for promotional reasons. As with Category:Fine Dining, delete. Dugwiki 16:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - the above afd was actually the first no consensus afd for Fine Dining, but the category was eventually deleted. I'm not sure what the date on the other cfd is, if someone can find a link to it. Dugwiki 16:49, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Casual dining restaurants
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Casual dining restaurants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
If the fine dining category was deleted because it was ambigious, POV and related arguments, then Casual Dining should be deleted as well since it is, by definition, the polar opposite of fine dining. If one goes, both goes. If this stays, then Fine Dining should be allowed to return as a category. Postcard Cathy 01:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete broad, vaguely named category. Doczilla 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. The main article, casual dining, needs a lot of cleanup. Without references there, it is kind of hard to justify this category based on the previous decision. However, if that article is improved with some references, then this category would be fine. The article has been tagged since January, so there has been sufficient time for an editor to fix the deficiencies. Since they have not, then the delete, albeit regrettable, can proceed here. Vegaswikian 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete basically meaningless. --Peta 06:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not appropriate for a category classification. See CFD for Fine dining. Postdlf 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Annandale 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not because the category "deserves" to be treated the same as "fine dining", but because it's still useless and POV and often arbitrary categorization. — coelacan — 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, although the nomination is poorly argued and appears to violate both WP:POINT and WP:WAX (and I don't agree that casual dining is really the "polar opposite" of fine dining), the arguments raised by Vegaswikian seem valid. Xtifr tälk 21:15, 3 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Roman Catholic entertainers
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Roman Catholic entertainers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Fails WP:CATGRS, there is no, and likely cannot be, an encyclopedic article about Roman Catholic entertainment, so the random intersection fails the guideline. If this survives deletion, I suggest we delete the guideline instead because we are unwilling to credit it. Carlossuarez46 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. and WP:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 04:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above comments. --Peta 06:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note previous CFD. Otto4711 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Intersection by religion and occupation generally does not have any meaning. Such categorization is meaningful only if religion is directly related to the occupation, as would be the case for Roman Catholic clergy. It could be argued that Catholicism has influenced the careers of some performers in this category, but probably not for the vast majority. Dr. Submillimeter 09:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Abberley2 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. -- Prove It (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. This is going to be a coincidental relationship for most modern entries, with no evidence that the religion has influenced the occupation in any consistent way or vice versa. For many historic entertainers from Roman Catholic countries, it would have been notable for them not to be Roman Catholic or not to have made music, etc. that was Roman Catholic in content or theme because of how much the Church dominated culture. Postdlf 14:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not that this is relevant to the debate but Category:People by religion and occupation has a number of similarly questionnable subcats. Pascal.Tesson 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wilchett 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, irrelevant for most of the cases. Pavel Vozenilek 11:54, 31 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Urban areas of Ireland
[edit]
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Metropolitan areas of Ireland, convention of Category:Metropolitan areas. -- Prove It (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without merging Please see my comment on the next discussion down first. Having correctly allocated the articles which are not about urban areas to the existing metropolitan area categories or elsewhere, only one of the original four articles is left, and that is already in category:Urban areas of the United Kingdom. As the official preference for the "urban area" as opposed to the "metropolitan area" is largely a UK thing, I don't suggest that we should use [:Category:Urban areas of Ireland]]. Abberley2 11:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The term "Metropolitan area" is used only for Dublin and Cork, and only in some limited contexts. "Urban area" is a broader and less tightly defined concept. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are no articles about urban areas in the Republic of Ireland in this category. BrownHairedGirl is incorrect about the definition, it is urban area that is more tightly defined. Honbicot 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a source for that assertion? I presume that you are referring to the former "Urban Districts", which did have a precise definition; but there is no reason to restrict the concept of "urban" to one historical use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Abberley2 and Honbicot. Alai 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. With regard to BrownHairedGirl's question, Urban area is a general use geographical term, and has nothing to do with "Urban districts" or any other local government unit which may have been used in Ireland. However there is no point in categorising "Urban Areas" separately from cities and towns except where there are separate articles about officially defined urban areas. Compare for example Portsmouth with Portsmouth Urban Area. Haddiscoe 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I largely agree that 'there is no point in categorising "Urban Areas" separately from cities and towns except where there are separate articles about officially defined urban areas', but would remove "offically defined" from that sentence; Category:Urban areas of Ireland does include two urban areas. Why abolish the category because these useful geograpical articles do not fit an official governmental area? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 31 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Metropolitan areas of the United Kingdom, convention of Category:Metropolitan areas. -- Prove It (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as already mentioned, I did create this category after all. They are 2 different things and there are plenty more articles that can be created in the future, to go in both categories. I'm trying to help UK articles on urban areas, metro areas etc, get up to at least somewhere near the standard of their US counterparts. By the way, this category is already a subcategory of the UK metro areas category so it should be left like that. Marky-Son 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as factually incorrect. "Urban area" and "Metropolitan area" are different concepts (different by millions in the case of London), and these articles are about urban areas. Abberley2 11:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Abberley2. "Metropolitan area" in the UK usually refers only to the former metropolitan counties. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Oppose per above. It's a reasonable subcategory, not redundant with "cat:metropolitan area" and therefore doesn't violate any convention that can be inferred from the "cat:Met areas". Bobanny 17:35, 31 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.