< May 15 May 17 >

May 16

Category:People from Naples

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: egrem. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Naples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge / Redirect into Category:People from Naples (city), duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 23:33, 16 May 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:WikiProject Stargate templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Stargate templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Stargate templates, duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 22:59, 16 May 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:Greek mythological people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Greek mythological people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Almost entirely redundant with Category:Greek mythology, which in fact appears on most of the same articles. Not a useful way of breaking down Category:Greek mythology, which consists almost entirely of articles about people. We should get rid of this, and think of useful subdivisions. By place (Athens, Thebes, Thessaly) and type (Culture hero, founder, deified hero) seem reasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 16 May 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:Reichmann family

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. That we have categories for some families is not a priori an argument for having a category on this family, especially if the cat has only a handful of family members and the rest is about buildings. That the family is notable is grounds for keeping the article. The comparison with the Rothschilds lacks several orders of magnitude. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Reichmann family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, Since when do we start categorizing families? -- Avi 21:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto -- why do you use the deletion of the same re-created category over and over as some kind of precedent for the deletion of all of the family categories? Only Category:Hollywood families and closely related categories is disputed (which you link to 5 times above), yet none of these others are. --Wassermann 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Otto. I don't know about the examples you have cited and the reasons why they were nominated etc. However, the question of what if an article performs the same function/s as a category is a serious one and I do not beleive that thus far there is a clear-cut policy that says that if an article "says it all" then the category related to it has to go. If there is such a policy, could you please point out the exact chapter and verse on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I would estimate that with that reasoning one could destroy about 80% of all the existing categories (since most articles are not that long, even with lots of links) and then what would that accomplish? But you would agree that the parent category of Category:Business families would stay wouldn't you? I don't know about the examples you have cited, but so far, all the sub-categories of Category:Business families that are of Jewish extraction happen to be very significant, especially since the factor of family is key to the over-all enterprise, like trying to understnd a monarchy yet saying that never pay attention to the royal family with all its extensions and how it functions. Let's keep some perspective please. IZAK 05:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothign to do with the religion or ethnicity of the families involved. There is no policy that addresses the issue. Probably WP:CLS is the closest thing. Regardless of the absence of a specific policy, there is a strong consensus that has emerged recently regarding categories named after families. In the vast majority of cases, in the CFDs I linked here and in many others, they are being deleted as unnecessary for navigational purposes. A well-written article on the family that clearly explains the relationships between the family members is far superior to a simple alphabetical category listing, and the article on the family can be placed in the Business families category. This family has an article (not particularly well-written, but I digress) and it along with family articles for a number of the oher families you cite are in the business families category. The articles on the family members themselves are linked to each other through the family article and through each other. Nothing is gained by having the family category. Otto4711 13:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto said: "[Family categories are being] "deleted as unnecessary for navigational purposes" -- this is untrue because navigation by categories is much easier than trying to navigate via the names in all of the disparate articles. For instance, just look at all of the families found in Category:Political families of the United States and tell me that it would be easier to navigate that topic if ALL of those names, families, and individuals weren't categorized? --Wassermann 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So create some more articles to add -- those are only the most public/prominent members of the family...others of course exist. --Wassermann 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope...in the past such categories WERE NOT deleted, as a quick browse through Category:Business families will show you. If the family businesses of these individuals bother you in this category, delete them. --Wassermann 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "precedent" as you claim -- have you looked at Category:Families lately? There are hundreds of different categories with families of all types. Again, it was only the Category:Hollywood families and closely related categories that have been deleted...no one disputes any of the others. --Wassermann 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the Reichmann family is without a doubt one of the most wealthy and influential business families in Canada, so so course they are well known by anyone that knows anything about business. If and when more articles about other Reichmann family members are added to Wikipedia, we can add them to this category. --Wassermann 08:41, 22 May 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:Romani people

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: redirected. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Romani people to Category:Roma people
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:Jewish Americans

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jewish Americans to Category:American Jews
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, For consistency with every other member of Category:Jews by country. Also note that the page Jewish Americans is a redirect to American Jews. Lesnail 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- please note that the redirect to "American Jews" over the vastly preferred "Jewish Americans" or "Jews and Judaism in the United States" is under dispute, with a clique of Wikipedia:OWN editors preventing this article's title from being changed or even discussed. Look at this article's talk page for more info on this. --Wassermann 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator at that discussion said "Naming has to be standardized. I prefer the dash, but ultimately, whatever people decide is fine with me, as long as its standard." So I would say it's an obvious Rename. <<-armon->> 00:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take these factors in to account before making this change. Why should Jews be different than all of the others? --Wassermann 06:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is a Category, not an article. Also, you seem to have completely ignored the fact that this category is the odd man out in Category:Jews by country. It's also the odd man out in Category:American people by religion: Category:American Sikhs, not Category:Sikh Americans etc. Finally, the sleight of hand you did on American Africans did not go unnoticed. Jayjg (talk) 07:09, 22 May 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:Evangelicals who teach Abstinence from Alcohol

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Evangelicals who teach Abstinence from Alcohol to Category:Christians who teach abstinence from alcohol or deletion.
Nominator's Rationale: Rename to broaden from Evangelicalism to all Christians and to fix caps per WP:NAME, OR delete as a violation of WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue. Which is more appropriate? --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:37, 16 May 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:Urban history

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Urban history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant category. Merge to Category:History by city or the appropriate country subcategory. - EurekaLott 15:31, 16 May 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.

Categoy:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Omaha

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: upmerge. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Omaha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This new sub-category is inconsistent with how the "Roman Catholic secondary schools" sub-categories have been set up. The State is the lowest sub-category necessary, especially in Nebraska where only 28 Catholic high schools exist. I suggest we merge into Roman Catholic secondary schools in Nebraska.EagleFan 15:27, 16 May 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:Appennines

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: redirect. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Appennines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Merge to Category:Apennines. Appennines is a common misspelling for Apennines. —Ian Spackman 13:25, 16 May 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:Quantum Leap

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Quantum Leap (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - all material in the category is easily navigable through the lead article. The category is not needed as a navigational hub. Otto4711 13:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two articles and two subcats. Despite the above comment, copied and pasted word-for-word into nearly every similar nomination, this amount of material has generally not been looked upon as warranting a category. Simply totting up the number of things in a category is simplistic, as pretty much any topic that might be a category could have a couple of articles assigned to it if one looked hard enough, and it does not address the question of whether the category is actually needed. Otto4711 15:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - Tim's stated rationale for keeping this category seems somewhat at odds with his statement here regarding TV show categories in general. None of the articles in this category would be undercategorized by the deletion of this container category and he seems to accept the notion that simply having episode and character categories doesn't warrant the eponymous container. Otto4711 13:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of multiple subcategories do you fail to understand? Tim! 16:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part where you at least partially contradict yourself. Otto4711 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the part where you added more to the comment a day after the fact. Otto4711 17:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified myself as you appear to have diffuclty understanding and have made the same comment multiple times across multiple nominations. Tim! 17:20, 20 May 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:Generals whose names sound like car brands

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Generals whose names sound like car brands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, Indiscriminate collection of information; no clear criteria for belonging to the category. Fg2 11:47, 16 May 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.

Category:Plant diseases

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Plant diseases to Category:Plant pathogens and diseases
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, wikipedia articles on "plant disease" are typically written about the disease incorporating the pathogen, or the pathogen incorporating the disease/s it causes. While this is fairly sensible way to keep the articles organised, the category name should reflect the contents of the category - in this case these categories include the pathogens and the diseases. I won't list them here since the bot driver should be able to work it out, but all the subcats have been listed for renaming too using the foo pathogens and diseases format. Peta 07:53, 16 May 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:Insect vectors of plant disease

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Insect vectors of plant disease to Category:Insect vectors of plant pathogens
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, pathogens is more accurate than disease. Peta 07:31, 16 May 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:Human pest insects

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Human pest insects to Category:Insect vectors of human pathogens
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, clears up ambiguity in the category title. Peta 07:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I oppose the rename as it does not accurately reflect the content of the category. Perhaps creating a sub-category for insect who spread diseases to humans would be the appropriate scheme. Otto4711 04:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, this category does currently only include vectors of human disease. I suggested the remane to make the category name less ambiguous. --Peta 00:12, 21 May 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:Negro League teams

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Negro League teams

Since a category for Negro League baseball teams exists, I propose deleting this category (putting all the articles into the baseball team category), unless there were Negro League teams for other sports. T@nn 06:59, 16 May 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:Articles with example Algol code

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles with example Algol code (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Replaced by two categories, for ALGOL 60 and ALGOL 68. Uncontroversial. Quuxplusone 04:59, 16 May 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:Cadet College Petaro

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cadet College Petaro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete and listify. Actually, the article Cadet College Petaro already has such a list (although one that looks like it could use a good cleanup!) but I see no hope of this cat bringing anything but category clutter. Pascal.Tesson 04:54, 16 May 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:Celebration Arts

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Celebration Arts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

First and foremost I don't find solid evidence that "Celebration arts" is widely used with that meaning (and it is actually also used with completely different contexts e.g. [2]). But even supposing for a moment that this is a legit terminology, the category is bound to be redundant with Category:Parades and the like. Pascal.Tesson 04:49, 16 May 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:Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico

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: egrem. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Puerto Rico
  • Comment - are there any members of Congress from P.R. who did not represent P.R. but were instead elected from a state, and if so should they be categorized in a P.R. category? Otto4711 12:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. No strong opinion on this either way then, but if the "Resident Commissioner" category is retained it needs to be pluralised. Otto4711 15:03, 16 May 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:United States Delegates from Dakota Territory

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States Delegates from Dakota Territory to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Dakota Territory
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other territories. See Category:Pre-statehood territorial delegates to the United States House of Representatives. —Markles 02:00, 16 May 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:Delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives from Alaska Territory

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives from Alaska Territory to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Alaska Territory
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other territories. See Category:Pre-statehood territorial delegates to the United States House of Representatives. —Markles 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives from the District of Alaska[edit]

Category:Delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives from the District of Alaska to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Alaska Territory

Category:United States Delegates from Oklahoma Territory[edit]

Propose renaming Category:United States Delegates from Oklahoma Territory to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Oklahoma Territory
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other territories. See Category:Pre-statehood territorial delegates to the United States House of Representatives. —Markles 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Delegates from Florida Territory[edit]

Propose renaming Category:United States Delegates from Florida Territory to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Florida Territory
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other territories. See Category:Pre-statehood territorial delegates to the United States House of Representatives. —Markles 02:00, 16 May 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.

Political parties in the UK

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming: Category:UK Liberal Democrats to Category:Liberal Democrats (UK)
Category:UK Labour Party to Category:Labour Party (UK)
Category:UK Conservative Party to Category:Conservative Party (UK)
Category:UK Co-operative Party to Category:Co-operative Party (UK)
Category:UK National Liberal Party to Category:National Liberal Party (UK)
Nominator's Rationale: Rename with disambiguator as as prefix, rather than as a suffix. This matches the name of the main articles on Labour Party (UK) and the Conservative Party (UK). Although the Liberal Democrats and Co-operative Party main articles do not have the (UK) disambiguator, there are other similar named parties elsewhere in the world (see Liberal Democratic Party and Co-operative Party (disambiguation)), and using the disambiguator will avoid confusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Also, some subcategories of the above:
Category:UK National Liberal Party politicians to Category:National Liberal Party politicians (UK)
Category:UK Co-operative Party politicians to Category:Co-operative Party politicians (UK)
Category:UK Conservative Party breakaway groups to Category:Conservative Party (UK) breakaway groups
Category:UK Conservative Party politicians to Category:Conservative Party politicians (UK)
Category:UK Labour Party breakaway groups to Category:Labour Party (UK) breakaway groups
Category:UK Labour Party politicians to Category:Labour Party politicians (UK)
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 10#Category:UK Liberal Party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 16 May 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.

Barbadian sportspeople

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename footballers, no consensus on cricketers. However, the latter is an inconsistent state which should be considered in a group nomination later on. See for example category:Scottish cricketers and Category:Scotland cricketers. The Scotland category declares it is only for non-Scottish players who play for Scotland, while the Barbados category makes no such claim. Thus, it is possible that non-Barbadian players can be in this category, which would make it a difficult fit for category:Barbadian sportspeople. Some global rename should be considered.--Mike Selinker 11:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per standard of Category:Cricketers by nationality and Category:Football (soccer) players by country. jwillburtalk 01:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mayumashu 07:27, 16 May 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:American heroes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American heroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

POV - jwillburtalk 01:11, 16 May 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:Jay Wolpert game shows

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jay Wolpert game shows (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unnecessary and nn category. Produced a few game shows, but none were particularly long-running or influential. Unneeded category. Biggspowd 00:33, 16 May 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:Uncials

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Greek New Testament uncials. Vegaswikian 07:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Uncials to Category:Category:Greek New Testament uncial manuscripts
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I created the current category while I wasn't clearly thinking. In New Testament textual criticism (the scholarly discipline that studies manuscripts of the new testament), "uncial" is a term of art to represent a specific categorization of roughly 300 manuscripts. However, uncial is also a generic name for the type of handwriting used in that era. The category is not a place to hold any manuscript that is writing in uncials. Being the creator of the cat, the purpose of it is to house the articles on the manuscripts that are categorized as "uncials" in the discipline of textual criticism. We need to specify that the manuscripts are Greek, because there are vulgate (latin) and other language manuscripts that are written in uncials that are not categorized as "uncials". We need to specify "new testament" because there are non-biblical manuscripts written in uncials. I'm open to any other name suggestions, but these are the considerations that I neglected to consider when first creating the category.Andrew c 00:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not in question. I understood the category was a template one, but it seems this is not so, so I accept my comment is not relevant here. But if anyone wants to see the problems this infobox causes, see Rossano Gospels. Johnbod 00:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on a way of providing one of those "hideable" infoboxes for cases where mss are illuminated. In the majority of cases relevant to textual criticism, the manuscripts are not illuminated, so there is no aesthetic issue. As I recall, I deliberately only added the infobox to a couple of existing illuminated articles, because I wanted to test reaction. Two distinct groups share interest in these articles, I appreciate your willingness to accept some kind of infobox, so long as it's not as prominent as the default style. I'm sure this issue has come up in other areas, which is why it is possible to make "hideable" boxes. I'll enjoy the challenge of learning how to do this. Cheers. Alastair Haines 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've continued this at Talk:Rossano Gospels Johnbod 21:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue seems to be ensuring we don't step on one-anothers' toes when articles are relevant to more than one group. Illustrations are of marginal importance to text criticism, the text is of marginal importance to art history, together they assist in dating, which is relevant to both. I would argue that differences of opinion be settled in favour of the group for whom a manuscript is most specifically relevant. For example, an illuminated manuscript should be handled primarily by art historians. An Old Testament manuscript should be handled primarily by Jewish text critics. Christian text criticism covers so many more manuscripts than the other fields, and has a narrow focus of interest in them, that it should respect the others' primary involvement with mss of more particular interest to these other groups. Alastair Haines 02:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I still don't see why a list will not do the job just as well - in fact much better. The category is defined by Gregory-Alands original list and, unusually in these circumstances, each member has a number, which is easier to reproduce and show in a list article than in a category. If you just want an alternate sort of the list, then a sortable list table would do that better. Johnbod 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is Category:Biblical manuscripts was getting too large, and one of the most obvious ways to break the category up is by the groupings established and used by textual scholars. Are you going to propose Category:New Testament papyri for deletion next? When it comes to textual criticism, saying it is a uncial, or papyri, or lectionary, or miniscule is more helpful and specific than saying it's simpy a "biblical manuscript". I believe this categorization used by scholars is more useful as a category than a list.-Andrew c 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have helped you there earlier tonight by removing several MS that were in an illuminated sub-cat of Biblical MS & had also been added to that cat, mostly I think by Alastair Haines. I only removed ones with no textual or linguistic significance - several with one or the other remain in the main cat & one of its sub-cats. I would have thought categories by language, or by date, were more useful than this category which, lets face it, is not comprehensible to most readers looking for the Codex Sinaiticus. You could also remove, either completely or to a sub-cat, things like the Ostromir Gospel which are linguistically rather than textually significant. Johnbod 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed to support the nom above, as I accept this is a step in the right direction. Johnbod 01:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, because I'm not clear about the issue. It's a good thing if we have a lot of articles, isn't it? There are more than 20,000 New Testament manuscripts alone. For various, quite different reasons, editors have cared to contribute articles on many of these manuscripts already. That says a lot for the value and notability of the manuscripts they have addressed.

People want to do different things with some of these articles, depending on their academic discipline. Categories can help define the lines of demarcation. If a manuscript is in the Illuminated category, we'd be crazy not to listen to the opinion of the art historians regarding presentation of those articles.

We already have a complete list of NT papyri, and it is sortable, as are the incomplete lists of Greek uncials and miniscules. We'll never have a complete list of the 10,000 Latin manuscripts. A category for Latin NT manuscripts makes sense because we can check it from time to time and people will have added articles to it, that we can then add to the list. If any of the subgroups get too big we can split again by date, or split by date in addition to other splits -- a good reason for a template, and one that places information like date in a default location, for ease of maintenance.

Anyway, that'll do from me. I think Andrew's the one doing the bulk of the high level work. I expect we'll be able to work with whatever he comes up with. I'm mainly just concerned with adding content, and helping readers navigate that content. Alastair Haines 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I support the amended nom Category:Greek New Testament uncials in order to be more congruent with the existing Category:New Testament papyri. -Andrew c 21:26, 23 May 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.

Category:People by city in the United Kingdom

Category:People by city in Wales

Category:People by city in Northern Ireland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename x3 >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People by city in the United Kingdom to Category:People by city or town in the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:People by city in Wales to Category:People by city or town in the Wales
Propose renaming Category:People by city in Northern Ireland to Category:People by city or town in Northern Ireland
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, City status in the United Kingdom is strictly and narrowly defined, and the vast majority of the places with categories are towns. The names of the English and Scottish categories already include the word "town". Honbicot 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
second this Mayumashu 15:21, 17 May 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.
More