< November 20	November 22 >

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 05:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aussie Bites Authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization by contribution to a book series. Peta (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - author by series, flavor of performer by performance. Many precedents. Otto4711 (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eastern Pennsylvania high school ice hockey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is needless and most of the articles in it are currently up for AFD. The remaining three articles would fit fine within its parent category. Djsasso (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seeing I brought this category into notice. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Categorizing organizations not meeting notability standards. Flibirigit (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Flibirigit -Pparazorback (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Bakaman 02:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus in this particular case and thus not much use a test case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As test case for all school alumni categories

Category:Old Leightonians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify. This is intended as a test case nomination. Leighton Park School is probably a fine establishment, but it doesn't seem particularly noteworthy, and I see no evidence so far that an education there is a defining characteristic of any of the people in the category (and certainly not relate to their notability). I can see a case for retaining categories such as this for a very few exceptionally notable schools such as Eton College, but the vast majority of the categories in Category:People by school in England seem to be superfluous. If this category is deleted, I suggest a series of individual nominations of the rest to allow individual assessment of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It may or may not be "noteworthy" but it is certainly a notable school, as it has an article - Leighton Park School. The category is rather large and includes a Leader of the Opposition and other distinguished figures - there seem to be even more listed in the article. I really don't relish seeing c on where to draw the line on these, which I suspect are capable of displaying some of the worst aspects of the English character. We have these categories for a large number of countries, including 68 sub-cats of Category:People by high school in the United States. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. It has an article alright, but one which comes nowhere near demonstrating WP:NOTEability (I know we usually presume notability for schools, so I'm not planning an AfD!). I take your point about the likelihood of endless battles, which are probably best avoided, but nonetheless it seems to me that these alumni-by-school categories are hard to justify as defining characteristics — a school rarely gets more attention in a biographical article than a mention of its name — and most of them would make neatly compact lists. I take your point about the possibility of endless battles, but that seems to me to be about the only persuasive reason to keep. It seems perverse that we that we categorise people by the school they attended, when we don't (rightly, IMO) categorise PhD holders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Leighton Park School alumni. I think the existence of the category is fine, but I do think that category names should tell you what the category contains, not be in a code only understood by those familiar with the subject. I'll save folks the trouble of calling me anti-British by saying that I'd feel this way if category:Ohio State University alumni were named Category:Buckeyes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was another "test case" nom on this maybe 3 months ago, which after much discussion came down on the "special names" side. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnbod here, albeit a little reluctantly. If we are going to keep, precedent is to use the school's own terminology but clarify it where misleading, which is why we have Category:Old Citizens (City of London School), agreed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 23#Category:Old_Citizens. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and I agree about making exceptions for truly noteworthy schools on a case by case basis, much as we do for awards and honors. If kept, I strongly agree with Mike Selinker about standardizing these cats to "XXX-school alumni" -- with creation of a redirect using the nickname. That should keep everybody happy, no? Cgingold (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk me through how this would work in the same way as awards & honours? Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm not sure how much I can really add, other than to say that we make judgement calls on which awards and honors we deem sufficiently noteworthy to merit having a Category. Not sure if that helps -- perhaps BHG would care to take a stab at this? Cgingold (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been trying to think of a formalised way of doing this, and I hope you'll forgive me for thinking out loud here. Myfirst idea was to try a ranking of defining characteristics, by asking whether the school (or award, because the same approach could be used there) is likely to be near the top of a potted bio consisting of prioritised bullet points. So in a list of "born 1808", "died 1967", "Minster for silly walks 1891-1933", "father of 4 children", "amateur orchid grower", "native of Borsetshire", "Felpersham magistrate", "OMRL MP", "MP for Ambridge 1833-1962", "Father was a civil servant", "mother was a web designer", "Fined 2 groats in 1901 for breach of the Street Credibility Act 1798", and "enjoyed horse-racing", we could say that "winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature" would float near the top but that "winner of the South Borsetshire junior gardeners prize" would be near the bottom; and that "Old Etonian" would also get a fairly high priority, but "educated at Ambridge compehensive" wouldn't. If the attribute seems to get high ranking on most of those who could be categorised, then keep it.
  That's maybe a long way round to suggesting that only the most notable schools should have an "old fooians" category. I know that Ghits are a crude and often misleading measure, but Leighton Park Schol get 13,000 ghits and Eton gets 300,000; Old Etonian gets 96,200 whereas Old Leightonian gets only 985.
  And finally, I think I have a decent answer, by recycling a principle from elsewhere. Why not apply both to schools and to awards the test in WP:CATGRS: that this sort of category "should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created". No problem writing such an article on "Old Etonians", but even if "Old Leightonians" could ever be more than a list, I think it would be a million miles from being "a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think these should be left as they are. I'm concerned at the low number of editors !voting here, when we know other similar debates have attracted large numbers of people. Presumably the test is to be applied globally, not just to England. I really don't think thousands of categorised articles should be turned loose without a wide debate. The intention above seems to be that only a very small number of mostly very expensive private schools would qualify in each country, which I don't think is desirable. Although even on the very strict interpretation above Category:Public school alumni and Category:Comprehensive school alumni etc for England, would I think qualify - so why not sub-cat them by school? Every school is distinct and unique - Leighton Park probably more than most, as a small Quaker public school with a definite left-wing flavour, observable in the careers of the alumni - rather like Dartington or the Mount School for girls. I imagine an article could quite easily be written on the subject - from that point of view it is perhaps not the ideal test case. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - school attended is an essential biographical detail like place and date of birth/death, college attended etc, and arguably more formative than anything else. And keep the name too. Alumni indeed. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Johnbod and Roundhouse0. The school attended is an important biographical detail and is eminently suitable for categorisation. The advantage over a list here is that one can easily navigate between different schools using the parent category. Once we have an article about the school and a sufficient number of verified names to make the category viable, I have no problem with having a category for those who attended. Drawing the line between schools would be an invidious process, prone to acrimony even if the "distinct and unique cultural topic" test was appropriate and workable (and I do not think that it is). Plus, as already noted, to use this discussion as a precedent for equivalent categories worldwide is not going to work. As for the merits of this particular school category, well, it's nicely populated and has some particularly notable names therein. And, yes, don't rename per my arguments in the last discussion. Bencherlite^Talk 09:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 06:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: The article BioErotica was deleted last year as being a non-notable neologism, yet a category for the subject has survived. I suggest that this be deleted. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This isn't just a neologism, it's an oxymoronic neologism. The word appears to refer to sex toys with some degree of artificial intelligence, and so far as I can see the one thing they all have in common is that they are electro-mechanical objects rather than biological. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Crumbs! I missed that - which one had the artificial intelligence? All the ones I looked at just sat there I thought. Delete Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that sitting is not a big part of the agenda for most of them, but the for example the RealDoll was once offered with "customisations such as robotic hip actuators and computer controlled speech feedback". How long before we have Category:Sex dolls which fake orgasm? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! - no more jokes on this or I will run away with myself, I fear. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn neologism does not support a category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Listify and Delete - The definition of "ethical" appears to be subjective from the discussion below. As such, this should be a list of banks, if anything, so that references/clarifications can be noted. There is already a small list at the article ethical banking (and a lengthier list previously removed here). - jc37 06:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I added the list to Talk:Ethical banking, rather than directly to the article, in the hopes that someone will help with references. - jc37 06:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ethical bank to Category:Ethical banking (added: or Category:Ethical banking movement)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There's a head article on ethical banking, and it seems like a reasonable topic. However, as "Ethical bank" it suggests a value judgment of particular banks and will be prone to misuse. Lquilter (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to either with concensus (added) per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (changing my mind), unless the category is restricted only only for articles discussing the subject of ethics in banking, rather than being attached to banks themselves. A rename to Category:Ethics in banking might help if kept, but I remain concerned that even that category name attached to an article on an individual bank implies a value-judgement on the ethical stance of the bank. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, the category does need to be pruned -- having eight individually named institutions in it is what caught my eye. But, there appears to be a real movement that calls itself "ethical banking"[1] and articles like ethical banking. "Ethics in banking" I think is a little vague and could encompass, for instance, scandals, regulation, articles on history of usury, loan sharks, etc. Do you think Category:Ethical banking movement be more descriptive than Category:Ethical banking? --Lquilter (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're right: Category:Ethical banking movement is more precise because the issue is the efforts by some banks to address ethical issues and/or to use their ethical code in marketing. Your revised suggestion also seems to happily covered both the banks themselves and discursive articles on the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Ethical banking movement per discussion above (changing my !vote yet again). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all banks consider their operations "ethical" how various third parties may judge the result of those operations is not encyclopedic, it's just POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The notable feature of the banks categorised here is that they be the business around having much more strict ethical standards than other banks. For example Triodos Bank "lends to businesses and charities that it thinks benefit people or the environment". The Co-operative Bank "refuses to invest in companies involved in the arms trade, global climate change, genetic engineering, animal testing and use of sweated labour as stated in its ethical policy", and also regularly surveys the ethical priorities of its customers. Whether any of us agrees with the priorities is a separate matter, but it's clear that these banks are distinguished by applying an ethical screening process to their customers. The use of the word "ethical" in the category may be problematic, but is the term they use themselves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply to Carlossuarez46 - ... which is why a category Category:Ethical banks would arguably be problematic, but a category about a movement called "ethical banking" is different in its very terms. --Lquilter (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: yes, some banks try to say they have higher "ethical" standards but fundamentally it's propaganda and POV without tying to anything concrete. Do the banks charge or pay interest? Not "ethical" under Shariah principals. Do they take depositor's money without paying interest on it? Sounds unethical by most western standards. Which only serves to underline why "ethical banking" is a purely POV call and a category based on POV is problematic. Like "fair trade" or "green" it's purely a tag line used by businesses to obtain an advantage. If we have this category, will we have one that highlights the faux pas of the movement Category:Ethical banking movement members whose ethics are less than optimal? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, it's the World Council of Churches trying to make a quick buck (Oikocredit) and they certainly made a big mistake giving the Nobel Peace prize to the founder of Grameen Bank last year. Who would you put in your proposed new cat? Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Setting aside the question of whether these banks are, or are not, "ethical"; if that's the name of the movement, then shouldn't we use that name? If not, then what is Carlossuarez46's proposed name for the movement? --Lquilter (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:P2P charities to fix the capitalization, without prejudice to a further debate on whether a better rename is possible. Bencherlite^Talk 00:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:P2P Charities to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Define? Delete? Spell out? Rename? At least let's fix the capitalization. There are three charities listed; they all seem to be Internet-based. Ideas for this category? Lquilter (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• At least one of the articles links to Peer-to-peer (meme) but there are so many different meanings for P2P and peer-to-peer that I'm reluctant to use it or the abbreviation in a category name. Category:Peer-to-peer (meme) charities for instance is awful. Perhaps Category:Internet-based charities or Category:Internet charitable fundraising? I dunno, those suck too. Otto4711 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category charities. Despite the neologism which makes this appear like a new idea, it's just a technogeek's term for a form of giving which existed for decades, if not for centuries. "peer to peer charity" is a term which could be applied equally well to organisations such as WorldVision and countless other help-a-poor child-in-Africa schemes; all that's new is the use of the internet. The terms do not appear to be widely used (only 108 non-wikipedia ghits for "peer-to-peer charity"). If someone can demonstrate that an encyclopedic article can be written on the subject of "peer-to-peer charity", I might change my mind, bur fot now it loooks like this has "short-lived neologism" written all over it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While the concept may be old the collection method is new. I don't have strong feelings but it seems like charities for whom the Internet is its only means of fundraising might warrant a category. Otto4711 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also Category:Click-to-donate sites which probably needs work as well but might be Otto4711's suggested "Internet-only" category. As for this one, "P2P Charities" basically includes 3 articles about organizations which list a variety of charities to which one can donate. This is the United Way model, right? Anyway, there does seem to be some merit in collecting these distinctive umbrella organizations. But I resist "P2P" as the name for it. Category:Umbrella charities? Category:Charitable pooling organizations? Category:Coalitional fundraising organizations? --Lquilter (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - I would had closed as "Listify", per the discussion below, but Ash Ketchum already has such a list. - jc37 06:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ash Ketchum's Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categorizing Pokemon by trainer feels like overcategorization to me. Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I agree that by trainer would be too much. But Ash is the main character, maybe not cats for Misty or the other trainers (I haven't seen pokemon in years, only remember misty). So, I guess this cat could stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinTing (talk • contribs) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While this is a defining characteristic of Ash Ketchum, it's not a defining characteristic of these Pokémon species. There are thousands of Pikachus, but only one owned by Ash.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fancruft, performer by performance, non-defining, can be replaced with a list in the Ash article. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining, and trivial at best. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Korean War amphibious warfare ships of the United States to Category:Korean War amphibious warfare vessels of the United States

Nominator's rationale: The category structure uses the term "amphibious warfare vessels", not "amphibious warfare ships", in order to allow it to contain landing craft and whatnot. See this CFD for precedent; it's not closed yet, but it is unanimous. TomTheHand (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per nom. ĞavinŤing 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nomination. Martocticvs (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Gatoclass (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Free software application servers, per several of the articles in the category. - jc37 06:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Free application servers to Category:Free application server software

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most categories used for software have either "software" or "(software)" as part of the name. Thus quickly identified in lists of subcategories and supporting "Category:software" searches. While not a main article for a category, the relevant article is Application server. tooold (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the category is capturing articles about application servers, not the software used to make application servers. Otto4711 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• See discussion in progress at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 20#Category:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 21 for "Open source games". Sorry, I've not enough experience to make the exact link. tooold (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support These articles, for example Glassfish (just a random article I took from the cat), are refering to to software that run on servers. "Free application server" would imply the actual hardware. This, since the articles are software, support as per nom. ĞavinŤing 19:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 06:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Joliet West (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - both as a small category with little probable growth potential and as non-defining. Very few people are defined by the high school from which they graduated. If retained it should be renamed to West Joliet High School alumni. Otto4711 (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. There is only one person in the cat, and he should be moved to his college if that has not been done yet. ĞavinŤing 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to both Category:Porsche vehicles and Category:Tractors. And I think, in this case, we can worry about future category schemes (as noted below) in the future. - jc37 06:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Porsche tractors to Category:Porsche vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Contains only 2 articles and is an unnecessary subcategorisation since a tractor is a vehicle. Other (more major) tractor manufacturers don't yet have their own subcategories for models. kingboyk (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Double upmerge to Category:Porsche vehicles and Category:Tractors. Unnecessary subcat, but articles need to remain part of the tractor category tree. Bencherlite^Talk 15:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought that was a given. Of course they go into Category:Tractors too! :) --kingboyk (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Bencherlite rightly points out why the nomination is wrong. One could of course double upmerge (in fact both models begin with "Porsche" so are not hard to find), but what is gained by that? Lose one category, add two category lines. And what happens when other manufacturers do get their own subcats? Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there no subcategory for Porsche cars? --kingboyk (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Search me. Will you be putting Category:BMW motorcycles up for deletion next? Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Uhhh - Perhaps delete, and then make a porsche subcat within the tractors cat for it. ĞavinŤing 19:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems to me that this category is not needed as subdivision of Category:Tractors, but that it is useful to distinguish the tractors from the 61 other articles in Category:Porsche vehicles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete all - Several of the suggestions for "Keep"-ing apply more to whether such information is relevant/"notable" for inclusion in each politician's article, than whether such a grouping system should exist. - jc37 06:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Category:Jewish politicians and Category:Jewish American politicians were relisted here, per concerns below. - jc37 07:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians by religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

and its subcategories:

Category:Atheist politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Buddhist politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Christian politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Latter Day Saint politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Protestant politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Anglican politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Baptist politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Congregationalist politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Lutheran politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Methodist politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Pentecostal politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Assemblies of God politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Seventh-day Adventist politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Roman Catholic politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Hindu politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Jewish politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Jewish American politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Muslim politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Afghan Muslim politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Gambian Muslim politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Georgian Muslim politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Guyanese Muslim politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Indian Muslim politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Indonesian Muslim politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Iranian Muslim politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Iraqi Muslim politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Libyan Muslim politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Pakistani Muslim politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Palestinian Muslim politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Sikh politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as the overwhelming majority of articles included in each category results in non-notable intersections of religion and profession/activity. Most of these are simple intersections, but others are triple intersections, e.g., Category:Pakistani Muslim politicians, Category:Jewish American politicians. (This categorization scheme could be useful if it was reserved for politicians that were members of parties or movements that were overtly religious. However, this is not how it is applied at all. For example, Mahmoud Abbas — who compared to some of the leaders of Hamas is a flaming secularist — is the only article in Category:Palestinian Muslim politicians.) But really, who thinks the fact that Calvin Coolidge was a Congregationalist politician is defining for him? If anyone thinks these aggregations are interesting enough to keep, I don't see why lists shouldn't be produced instead of categories. Snocrates 13:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: This is a case were a categorization works well in some countries, but not in other. In some countries the political life is divided along religious community lines, but that is far from all cases. Religious identity is not always clearcut, and may be very ambivalent in many cases. --Soman (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: Religious cat's should only be used were religion forms part of notability. --Domer48 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second that and could we codify this into a guideline to prevent cats like this being recreated? AndrewRT(Talk) 18:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now notice we have one already at WP:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference AndrewRT(Talk) 18:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Politicians act in the name of the people according to their own personal characters. In democratic countries, they are elected based upon these characteristics. In some places (Nigeria, southern Thailand, Northern Ireland, etc), these characteristics are almost as important as the person's political views. Hence, such personal characteristics as religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation are inherently of notability to the role that politicians play, in being actors in the name, and representatives of, the people. Bastin 13:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom ;) ĞavinŤing 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, per Bastin, though only because I think it is the least-worst solution, and I may be persuaded otherwise. If these categories were used properly, and were applied only to those politicians who political stance openly espoused the values of their particular religion, they would be great. People like David Alton and Oliver J. Flanagan are unambiguously Roman Catholic politicians, placing great political emphasis on Catholic social values, and it's very useful having Category:Roman Catholic politicians for the likes of them. However, the problem is that the category also includes Bertie Ahern, who usually keeps his religion private and whose relationship history is not what the RC church would advocate, and it all too-often includes people like Richard Younger-Ross, a devout Catholic who nonetheless departs strongly from the church line on social issues (he's not in the category, but people like him too often are). As Bastin notes, there are some places such as Northern Ireland (and currently Bradford West) where religion may be as important as political party, or even more important. However, it seems to me that the majority of the people in these categories are not "religious politicians", but rather people of a particular religion who also happen to be politicians, and (as Domer48 wisely notes) were not notable for heir religious views. I think that the solution is to create lists along the lines of List of British Muslim politicians, etc ... but so far we don't have such lists. Keeping these flawed categories seems to me to be better than having no groupings of politicians-by-religion, but I would support deletion of any categories where a reasonable list (or even a reasonable start at a list) is in place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Could we possibly review the currnet lists and insist on verifiable and reliably sourced references, which demonstrate how religion forms part of their notability? If this information is not there, well the cat should not be. --Domer48 (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Which lists are you referring to? In my quick scan, I didn't find any. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Keep Category:Jewish politicians since Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion. This is reflected in 3 of its subcategories, which are for Jews who governed in a specifically Jewish manner/location. --Eliyak T·C 01:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pray tell, why aren't Muslims, Arabs or Christians part of ethnic groups too? Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, just don't say anything. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 03:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Because Judaism was originally the national religion of the Hebrews/Israelites/Jewish nation, and continues to define itself in terms of heredity. Also, I haven't said anything at all about Muslim or Christian politicians. There may be room for them as well, but I am not as familiar with their respective situations, so I can't comment. By the way, should you care to know it, condescension does not encourage constructive discussion. --Eliyak T·C 05:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize, but I felt that you were singling out Judaism and thus, for lack of a better word, discrediting other religions. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Politicians by ethnic group could also be deemed debated I'd think. There are only three categories in it besides Category:Jewish politicians. (Those are Category:Gujarati politicians, Category:Inuit politicians and Category:Romani politicians. Although Category:American politicians has several ethnic sub-groups and several others "by nation" have one or two)--T. Anthony (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:OCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. There are some countries where religion is a particularly important characteristic for a politician, and others where it isn't. Because these are categories of people, including living people, we should err on the side of leaving these categories out. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per BHG. But as BHG and Domer state, these categories should only be used where their religion is a defining characteristic or related their notability. I've been reviewing and partially depopulating Category:Northern Irish Roman Catholics over the last couple of days for this reason. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or possibly listify. An alternate idea is say Category:Members of Catholic political parties as subcategory for Category:Catholic political parties; Category:Members of Protestant political parties for Category:Protestant political parties; Category:Members of Islamic political parties for Category:Islamic political parties; and Category:Members of Jewish political parties for Category:Jewish political parties. Then maybe create a category for Hindu Nationalists and Buddhist groups.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it's relevant to the bio, it's in the bio - here we're lumping people together: Bill Clinton is a baptist politician so he has what in common with the folks from the other party trying to impeach them? Christian charity and forgiveness. Hardly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Religion does play a major role in political decisions. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per above and remains a good search tool regardless. -RiverHockey (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all -- the point of Wikipedia is to collect and organize knowledge, not to collect it over a long period of time only to delete it all later. The mass nomination of all of these categories was a major blunder. All of these categories are valid and should be kept. --Wassermann (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IINFO#IINFO. Restrict your comments to the merits of the nomination and please avoid criticising/praising my decision to nominate. That's not what this is about and is totally irrelevant. Snocrates 20:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete all per nom (changing my!vote). After re-reading the debate, I have changed my mind, because I don't think that these categories are salvageable, for several reasons:
  1. Despite the good efforts of some diligent editors in pruning these categories, the category names will continue to encourage their use for any politician of X religion, so they will require constant ongoing maintenance with plenty of opportunities for dispute
  2. All of these categories suffer from the limitation as all categories, of being a binary choice, which doesn't allow for any distinction in significance of religion in that person's political career. The example has been cited of above of Mahmoud Abbas, a muslim politician whose religiuos stance is however notable primarily for his opposition to the Islamists of Hamas. There are many others who cause similar problems. Garret FitzGerald, for example, is a devout Catholic who could quote papal encyclicals from an early age, and who was heavily influenced by Catholic social teaching, and it is perfectly reasonable to categorise him as a Roman Catholic politician, albeit a critical one ... but when compared with his party colleague Alice Glenn, he looks like a secular politician.
  3. We can find the same problem in many more of these categories. Category:Methodist politicians already includes George Thomas (a socially conservative Labourist Welshman) and Robert Bradford, an Ulster Unionist heavily influenced by American evangelical christianity. These people are definitely notable for their Methodism, but it was of such a different sort that categorising them together is simply misleading. Contrast those two with one of the UK's most noted recent Methodist politicians, Donald Soper, a pacifist radical whose politics had almost nothing in common with those of Bradford or Thomas.
  4. Category:Baptist politicians includes both Bill Clinton a pro-abortion, pro-United Natons social liberal and Ron Paul, a strongly anti-abortion social conservative whose favours withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations (UN). Both are accurately categorised, but their example clearly illustrates yet again how the bare use of a label of religious denomination is not a defining attribute of a politician, because the same religious faith can underly utterly contrasting political paths.
  5. In summary it is simply not possible to use these categories without arbitrary and subjective inclusion criteria, and even that leads to such a diverse collection of people that they are utterly useless as a device to "to browse through similar articles" (per item#1 of WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines). This subject could be the basis of many interesting articles of the form Methodism in Welsh politics, Baptists in American politics etc, but those articles would only illustrate the diversity of the political paths followed by adherents of these denominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all --Enough of this atheist communist propaganda Personalbest (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please can you explain what you mean by that comment? I'm only a humble bogtrotter from the lands of the bogs and the mist and the little people, but I don't see where the atheist communist propaganda comes tag comes from. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Religion is a difficult identity to categorize people based on, because it is principally a belief. So, for example, different people may identify as members of a single religion, but have widely varying ideas of what the religion means or their identification means; and people may even be formally members of particular religions even if they have disavowed it in many other ways. People can also be members of multiple faith groups at the same time. And yet, religion, like political belief, can be an incredibly defining identity for some people; both by their own internal sense of identity, and in how they are treated or identified socially. But there is simply no way to categorically identify all these different components. So I have to conclude that religion is not a good category to generally intersect with occupations, nationalities, or other basic biographical categories. Obviously, where religious identity (or beliefs about religion, as in atheism) is a defining identity, then a category is appropriate for that; but it is rare to make it work as a category intersection. I'm leaning towards delete, for what it's worth, but still not committed enough to bold it. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply aha! A CfD agnostic :)
    Seriously, for a moment, I think that the one intersection which may make sense is religion/nationality. A Nigerian Anglican is in general a very difft species to a Canadian Anglican, and an Irish Catholicism has historically had a very different hue to, for example, Dutch Catholicism. Those distinctions seem to me to be worth making, but the religion/politics one is simply too diverse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:BLP allows for categorization by religion. Religion is very potent in politics.Bakaman 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - Noting also to any concerns about Jewish ethnicity (see discussion directly above), that the single member of that category is already in one of its subcats. - jc37 07:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish academics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Latter Day Saint academics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-notable intersections of religion and profession. From what I can tell, no other "Foo academics" categories exist for other religious groups. Snocrates 12:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No evidence that these are notable intersections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs), and my comments above. --Domer48 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - inappropriate intersection of categories. --D. Monack | talk 00:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I note with irony the supposition that Fooian American academics is relevant, e.g. Category:African American academics but Jews and Mormons aren't. Guess WP just thinks that African Americans academe differently than their non-AA counterparts, but Jews and Mormons have mainstreamed. Sad, that, but WP acknowledges its WP:BIAS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A complete red herring. These intersection categories are independently assessed on their merits, per WP:CATGRS, which fully expects some intersections to need to exist and others to not. If there are sources to justify an article about Jewish academics then a category is justified. Otherwise, not. Reference to Category:African American academics is wholly irrelevant, since that category has its own sources (or lack thereof). So it's not what WP "thinks" but what scholarly consensus and academic publishers and so on have deemed useful and interesting topics of study. --Lquilter (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Political office-holders in the European Union to Category:Political office-holders of the European Union

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify that people hold political office in the institutions of the European Union rather than in the institutions of the member states. (I am not sure that this tweak offers sufficient clarification, and would welcome any better suggestions). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Suggestion is much clearer than what now exists. Snocrates 12:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, indeed. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Jacksonville to Category:People from Jacksonville, Florida

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ambiguous as a category. Parent category is Category:Jacksonville, Florida. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename in line with main category and main article Jacksonville, Florida. Bencherlite^Talk 09:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, to match the main article and category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Manchester to Category:Companies based in Manchester, England

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Manchester is ambiguous and it is not the only one with a category for companies. The other one is already disambiguated in this manner as are other British cities.Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, ditto for Category:Organisations based in Manchester? Lugnuts (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not be opposed to that. Fell free to add it to this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Main article is Manchester, main category is Category:Manchester. Ordinarily, the sub-categories follow the lead of the parent, which follows the main article. Bencherlite^Talk 09:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I agree with Bencherlite. There is only one major city in the world with the name. Other places on the disambiguation page are no doubt named after it. If other places warrant their own category, they can have it with the appropriate regional suffix, no doubt with an appropriate disambiguation link. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Bencherlite and Peterkingiron: follow the naming of the main article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Bencherlite^Talk 23:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies of Norway by location to Category:Companies by city in Norway

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Category:Companies by city in Canada and Category:Companies by city in Indiain form. The other option is to rename all to Category:Fooian companies by city which, as I think about it, might be the neater solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The present name of the category takes appropriate consideration to the political geography of Norway where many communities are not cities and several companies do not belong to a city or town. However, the main problem is that this change would completely ruin the category's existing sub-structure, which has also been implemented throughout the Norway category hierarchy, of categories by county and then subdividing these when need be. __meco (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "City" isn't appropriate here; a couple are cities, most are and should be at the county (in more of a British than American sense, Norse fylker) level, with soem independent cities and a couple of cities within he fylker. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This category contains 19 companies by county and two companies by city categories. Because of the mix of counties and cities, the only correct way to name this is by calling it locations. If not, 18 of the 21 subcategories will be incorrectly labeled. This is not very encyclopedic. If someone feels that the norm to name categories means changing the category to Category:Companies by location in Norway that is absolutely fine with me. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Companies based in Oregon (exception of Category:Companies based in Vancouver, Washington). Since this category was added to replace Category:Companies based in Oregon, deletion without upmerging would leave most articles out of the category tree. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies based in the Portland metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and ambiguous category, overcategorization--we already have Category:Companies based in Oregon and subcategories for various cities, category won't ease navigation. Katr67 (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Companies based in Portland, Oregon. As a general rule these categories cover the surrounding areas. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge to Category:Companies based in Portland, Oregon. Badagnani (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restore original categorization scheme, as nominator. Note that not everything currently in this category is actually based in Portland. Hillsboro !=Portland, Vancouver, Washington !=Portland, and these and other cities in this category currently have their own subcategories of Category:Companies based in Oregon. Category:Companies based in Portland, Oregon should only contain companies based in the city of Portland, not any of the cities in the surrounding metro area. Katr67 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge As per nom. ĞavinŤing 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom is, in fact, advocating deletion, not merger... Bencherlite^Talk 23:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Merging puts things in the wrong cities (trying to avoid the lumping into one large cat), the sub cats need to go back to their former structure, then merge any items listed in the main cat in the Portland only cat. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we separate by city, county, not metro area. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 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.