< November 7	November 9 >

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 closed and moved.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November_10#Century eras due to delay in tagging all categories involved. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:37, 10 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 Category:Armenians of Turkey and Category:Turks of Armenian descent to Category:Turkish people of Armenian descent. This, rather than "Turks," is becoming the dominant phrasing in categories of this type.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenians of Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Proposal: Upmerge Category:Armenians of Turkey into Category:Turks of Armenian descent
• Rationale: These are redundant categories. Cgingold 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Within the former Ottaman Empire and Middle East generally, religious distinctions have eben so entrenched over hundreds of years, that each religious denomination has become a sort of nationality. Conversely, to be Turkish is almost synonymous with being Muslim. The Armenians are a Christian community, who suffered genocide during WWI. There are Armenians in Turkey, Syria, and no doubt other neighbouring countries, as well as in Armenia. The present category is precise and descriptive of their situation, and should NOT be renamed. Peterkingiron 22:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge redundant category. Doczilla 07:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge but the other way around. Category:Armenians of Turkey is about year older. Armenians and Turks rarely intermarry and can't be considered Turks of Armenian descent. VartanM 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to follo the suit in similar cats, the name might be changed to Category:Turkish Armenians (some hyphens maybe) Turkish is the citizenship here, and Armenians is for the ethnicity. The order might have caused some confusion (eg. Hispanic-American), but I guess it doesn't. See Hrant Dink, List of Turkish-Armenians... Following Category:Armenian-Dutch people we can have something like Category:Armenian Turks. This has "Turkish-Armenian editor" and "Sabri Nas, 47, an Armenian-Turk" Whichever sounds better in the ears of English natives. Deniz^T_C 05:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think the Turkish-Armenian is the most widely used and accepted term. Armenians of Turkey sound a little too ESL to me. VartanM 05:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I knew this was gonna be a tough one -- which is why I didn't try to come up with a new name even though I don't really like either of the current names. The simplest thing might be to call it Category:Armenian-Turkish people, in line with Category:Armenian-Dutch people. However, there's another possiblity: if you look at the sub-cats of Category:Turkish people by ethnic or national origin -- which is quite a jumble of naming styles -- there seems to be a trend of sorts for Turkish people of Foo-ian descent, which would give us Category:Turkish people of Armenian descent. I don't have a real preference, but I think either of these would do the job. Cgingold 09:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to add that whatever name we settle on, it needs to be clear that we're talking about Turkish nationality in conjunction with Armenian ethnicity -- and NOT the reverse. So, for example, Category:Armenian Turks would also be valid, but Category:Turkish Armenians would not be. Cgingold 16:40, 16 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 (delete, effectively, since the category members are the same). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Category:Armenians of the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Proposal: Upmerge Category:Armenians of the Netherlands into Category:Armenian-Dutch people
• Rationale: These are completely redundant categories. Cgingold 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Looking at the above we may one day standarize these Foos of non-Fooland cats, but alas that'll be a big ole discussion. Carlossuarez46 00:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge redundant category. Doczilla 07:15, 12 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Category:Armenian Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Proposal: Merge Category:Armenian Jews into Category:Jews and Judaism in Armenia
• Rationale: Overcategorization: There is only one article in each category, with little potential for growth. Cgingold 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this is part of a greater series of parent articles such as Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Jews by country and it is still ((underconstruction)). Most of the categories in Category:Jews and Judaism by country have sub-categories for the Jews who lived in them or are associated with them. No need to create gaps in a wider series of well-constructed and useful categories because one may not be full enough. Give it time, and it will be populated by other editors. Thank you, IZAK 01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (weak). IZAK's rationale seems appropriate, and the categories may be helpful. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category is helpful, part of a greater series, and has demonstrated potential for growth. Bhaktivinode 04:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep for the same reasons given by Izak who said all there is to say here. Hmains 04:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is there truly potential for growth here? In my judgement that's unlikely, but I could be persuaded otherwise. If it's deleted, I would have no objection to the category being recreated in the future if the need arises. Cgingold 11:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep even if underutilized, the structure is useful. Gzuckier 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by conventions of Category:Jews by country, a consistent and logical hierarchy is a good thing, even if some of the members are underpopulated. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of wider scheme, per ProveIt. Johnbod 18:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Prove It. Carlossuarez46 00:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As part of a wider scheme. Ravenhurst 13:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per conventions. Doczilla 07:16, 12 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 mixed: rename the parent category to Category:Jewish history by century, per the convention of Category:Categories by century, and handle the subcategories per certain principles listed below.

There are primarily three issues relevant to this discussion: subcategorisation of Category:Jewish history by century, the particular means of population employed in this instance, and replication of other category schemes. This discussion does not produce a consensus regarding the first issue, largely because most discussion focused on the other two issues. The second issue is tied to the navigability of the category system. On the one hand, subdivision promotes specificity and can make navigation easier for readers by allowing them to browse through a narrower grouping of articles. On the other, excessive subdivision creates category clutter and makes navigation more confusing and difficult. The third issue, of replication, is based in the fact that Category:Jewish history is not the only category for Judaism-related articles and categories; indeed, it is not even the primary category. Categorisation in a manner that largely replicates existing categorisation schemes is undesirable.

The individual subcategories will be handled primarily on the basis of the following principles:

1. Articles about and categories for general topics that span several centuries are better suited for a main category (such as Category:Jewish history) than individual by-century categories. Example: Category:Antisemitism.
2. Not all Judaism-related topics need to appear in Category:Jewish history or its immediate subcategories. Many pages are more suited for the other subcategories of Category:Jews and Judaism. Where a more suitable category is available, it should be used. Example: Category:Torah books.
3. For the most part, historical categories should include events, movements, and the like. Biographical articles and categories have a largely distinct system of parenting that should be used when appropriate. Example: Category:Judges of ancient Israel.
4. In cases where categorisation by century requires arbitrary or unverifiable judgments about timeframes, it is best to avoid by-century categorisation. Example: Category:Antisemitism.

Any categories that are emptied by the application of the above principles will be deleted, without prejudice to proper recreation (i.e. when there is material that justifies the category), and naturally without any immunity from renomination. Any categories that remain populated will be kept, without prejudice to immediate renomination for deletion or merging in a more focused discussion. Although I have looked through the categories under discussion in much detail, their sheer number prevents me from providing a preliminary estimate of the number of categories to be deleted or kept. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close notes

An application of the four principles listed above, in conjunction with a fairly loose application of WP:SUBCAT, emptied all categories except the one for the 20th century, where a handful of articles and categories remained. These were simply merged into Category:Jewish history or an appropriate subcategory.

If the reasons behind a particular edit made during the course of implementing this close are not apparent, please contact me at my talk page and I will provide an explanation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete holding category for a number of misplaced holding categories for jewish history which overlaps the respective century. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose:

• Propose merging category:21st century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:20th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:19th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:18th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:17th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:16th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:15th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:14th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:13th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:12th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:11th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:10th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:9th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:8th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:7th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:6th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:5th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:4th century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:3rd century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:2nd century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:1st century BCE Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:21st century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:20th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:19th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:18th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:17th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:16th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:15th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:14th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:13th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:12th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:11th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:10th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:9th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:8th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:7th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:6th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:5th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:4th century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:3rd century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:2nd century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• Propose merging category:1st century Jewish history into Category:Jewish history
• — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

incomplete nomination, await AMbot request to build ((cfm)) templates. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged them with AWB. --Eliyak T·C 06:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (a) It is not clear if the nominator is violationg WP:COI, see the article about himself at Arthur Rubin. He needs to clarify why he is doing this on clear grounds. (b) The nominator's reasoning makes no sense, he claims that it's a "holding category for a number of misplaced holding categories for jewish history which overlaps the respective century" -- but the function of categories is precisely to be "holding categories"! He does not define the word "misplaced" clearly. What exactly is "misplaced"? This needs to be clarified when proposing such a radical mass delete. The claim that there is somehow something "wrong" with these categories with "jewish history which overlaps the respective century" is absurd, simply because Jewish history (in whole or in segments) does overlap over all respective centuries, just as the Iron Age, Antiquity and the Middle Ages overlaps many respective centuries, to no ill-detriment on Wikipedia or its categories (see WP:NOTPAPER.) In any case, the general category of Category:Jewish history was used as a starting point to create the sub-categories with red-links, but now that they have been created with sub-categories from Jewish history going into them, the general category may be removed leaving only lesser categories, but again, this was something that should have been clarified through discussion and not put on the chopping block before any clarifications could be given, as agreed upon, but not followed through by User Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs). (c) These categories are new and were created in the past few days in a long overdue effort to help categorize Jewish history according to accepted centuries. The nominator is rushing to delete them for no good reason beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ITANNOYSME. (d) The categories are here to help and not to hinder anything! They are meant to serve as parent categories for sub-categories in Jewish history broken down by each century of recorded history. Thus Category:Jewish history by centuries is now a valuable help and category that will help connect many already existing legitimate categories already in the VERY general Category:Jewish history with corresponding categories about specific centurues, a key requirement in historical chronology especially when dealing with a subject as broad as Jewish history which stretches back to Biblical times, covering a time-span of nearly twenty centuries, and especially as Wikipedia continues to grow in its huge collection of articles and categories dealing with Jewish history that require a coherent method of organization which the nominator does not grasp. (e) In a general sense, this nomination may also be a violation of WP:BITE as these categories were created in the last two days and are being worked on. They may perhaps need the ((underconstruction)) templates but certainly not a nomination for a mass delete like this! The categories are now complete, coherent and constructive, and they have been steadily filling up with sub-categories, but more time is neeeded. (f) All the categories listed above are legitimate sub-categories for existing century categories. Thus, for example, Category:1st century Jewish history (and the rest) is a rational, logical and coherent sub-category of Category:1st century and of Category:Jewish history by centuries etc, etc. (g) The nominator is violating WP:AGF because a few hours ago he had requested further discussion, see User talk:IZAK#era categories.... Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time#era categories.... but instead went ahead with proposals for mass deletions. See related discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8#Century eras; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8#Category:Historical eras by century and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8#Category:Centuries of the future. IZAK 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Specific points, in case anyone wants explanation as to my reasoning. Obvious, if there were a conflict of interest, you couldn't trust me as to whether the reasoning was accurate, but you can check whether it's reasonable.

  (a) I fail to see any basis for a WP:COI claim.

  (b) It's not obvious, but my claim is that articles and categories in multiple instances of centuries is worthless. As well have Category:History of the United States included in Category:18th century, Category:19th century, Category:20th century, and Category:21st century. I don't doubt that there is some value to the individual categories, but that I do doubt that any article or category in more than 2 of the listed categories belongs in any. That's what I meant by "misplaced", and that's still what I mean by "misplaced". As for, say Middle ages, it's not in multiple chronological categories, although some of the related categories contain multiple chronological categories.

  (c) Irrelevant, and most of the categories should be empty except for misplacement of related categories. Empty categories (in general) should not be created.

  (d) I grasp the concept of sorting Category:Jewish history by time. However, the centuries in question are arbitrary, and most of the articles so far sorted span 4-800 years, and are hence included in 4-9 of the century categories. This is not helpful.

  (e) WP:BITE only applies to newby. IZAK is not acting like a newby, but he is acting contrary to a number of wikipedia guidelines. If I were to WP:BITE, I'd have blocked, as damage is still being done.

  (f) A point as to categorization, but few articles or categories should be placed there. I'd accept "clear and insert only those articles and categories which refer to a period of no more than 2 centuries in length", instead of deleting or upmerging the categories, but it would require a number of man-days. If someone would commit to doing it, and IZAK would commit to not making major changes without some discussion in the relevant WikiProjects, it would be a feasible solution.

  (g) I requested further discussion, and IZAK said that his edits were fine, but not giving reasons. As I saw (and mentioned) specific problems, the next step would be an RfC. As I couldn't get a response as to the scope of the problem, I thought I'd start clearing out the more obvious errors. Obviously, it's up to the editorial consensus to decide who is in error.

  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well Arthur, now finally, we are getting around to having the discussion here of all places when I replied to you in good faith that I would be willing and more than happy to discuss the issues you may have. It seems to me that you keep on expressing shock, it is perhaps the result of my hard work and very carefully reasoned approach, that I created the bulk of these categories. Let me rebut you: (a) There is an article about you on Wikipedia. You should function under greater anonymity on Wikipedia as an editor and admin, so that people not fear nor confuse that you may have certain personal prejudices against them based on your resume, which an anonymous user name would not violate. (b) History is longer and older than most people, so that the histories and eras of countries, cultures and religions very often do span not just centuries but also millenia. This is known to historians and is nothing new. Your objections and assertions are not borne out or validated in any way by Historiography. (c) No empty categories were created. Do not attribute that to me. I created new (sub) categries with one or two categories or articles in them, all in the last 48 hours, waiting to fill them with more sub-categories and articles, but you have jumped the gun. First a framework is created then it is filled. I have done the former and you are not letting me do the latter by your violent (editorial) response against me. (d) This is ridiculous because eras in Jewish history, like many eras in history, such as the Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain or the many ((Eras of the Halakha)) often cover many, many centuries, yes often 4-800 or more. Just as the Middle Ages spans a millenium. This is all historically accurate. (e) I meant "BITE" not in the literal sense, and I tried to make that clear, but in the sense that you were "biting" new material, not giving things a chance when you had asked me to talk to you, and I had agreed, yet you ignored my response. (f) I am not, and have not made any "major" changes in any projects. I have concluded the first stage. Now I wish to populate the categories that you are clamoring to delete. Please stop it. I have just been systematic and thorough. Your accusations are a red herring. But the rest of what you say here can and should be part of any normal give-and-take in a discussion like this, and I should not have to be responding to you here, but rather at the talk page/s I agreed to meet you on. (g) EVERYTHING you allege against me here in this last point is false. As you see, I am very verbal and I am willing to talk things over with you. IZAK 01:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. No other national, etnic or religious history categories are subcategorised this way, and in my view it is just not a good way to categorise history, as the contents of the categories show - so far almost all are just the same subcats over and over again. I appreciate IZAK's point that they have not been populated, but in many of the earlier cases it is hard to see what would go in them. The earlier categories will also clearly use a Biblical chronology which will at many points be significantly different from modern archaeological/historical thinking, and I am uneasy about enshrining that in a category without explanation. There are excellent timeline articles on Jewish history in Category:Jewish history timelines, which are part of the answer here. Johnbod 23:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi John, all you seem to be saying is that this is something new so WP:IDONTLIKE. As Wikipedia grows with millions of articles, ever-increasing efforts are constantly being made to classify and categorize new information contained in huge numbers of articles and ever growing sub-categories. To say that "No other national, etnic or religious history categories are subcategorised this way" is not valid just because it's the first time you come across it. Jewish history is a unique body of information about an ancient vibrant people, with vast records and events surrounding them, and this method of categorizing their history by centuries is a wonderful way to deal with information and sub-categories on a vast scale that "timelines" just do not afford. The ancient Greeks and Romans are fortunate to have many of their sub-categories fit into the various century sub-categories, see for example Category:2nd century BC which has the sub-categories of Category:Hellenistic civilization and Category:Third Punic War or the sub-category Category:Centuries by country which has many countries in it, therefore for the Jewish people who did not have a country as such for two thousand years in their Jewish diasporah yet being very significant in history, these categories perform the same function as the others for other nationalities or national histories. IZAK 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did not see Category:Centuries by country, but then presumably neither did you, as that is where these categories should go, but they are not included in it. I would be prepared to change to Keep on the basis that a)only fairly specific items are included - the whole of Category:Torah etc should not be in every BCE category - it is pointless. Specific items should be selected, and b) the chronology used is archaeological rather than Biblical (which I think will mean losing several early categories) and c) they are categorised as other "by country" categories are. And I wish you would refrain from inevitably inaccurate guesses at the motives of others, which as many know often froth up into personal attacks. Johnbod 01:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with that. The first few categories I looked at had only mischaracterised (Category:Torah), "in-Universe" (Abraham (where his article says 2000-1700 BC), and articles spanning multiple centuries (Second Temple). If you'll agree to keep a parallel (Jewish history by millennia), and move approriate articles to those categories, and add navbars to the categories, I'd be willing to withdraw the nomination. You still need to remove all of these categories from the "era" categories. The structure you've created violates the guidelines in Wikipedia:Categories, and you shouldn't do that without getting consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John: The categories in question here were mostly created in the last 48 hours. In the process I have had to copy-edit and fix-up all sorts of mostly minor errors and omissions in articles and categories relating to centuries that I came across, a very time consuming and tough job, but I am done with that stage. Obviously I have not seen every last category or sub-category in every last nook and cranny of Wikipedia relative to this. It is still new and I am working on it. Obviously too, all discussions and mutual efforts are welcome. No disasters have happened here. On the contrary, a useful set of pathways have opened up with these categories and sub-categories. The chronology cannot limit itself to only one POV, it should include everything. Are you saying that the eras of the ((Books of Torah)), the ((Books of Nevi'im)) and the ((Books of Ketuvim)) should be excluded from records of Jewish history? That may be the height of the disembodiment of Jewish history (let alone Judaism) from itself! Sure you may not like the accuracy of Torah records, but that is no reason to exclude them here, just as much as many don't like Biblical criticism and the Documentary hypothesis POVs in Torah and Tanakh articles on Wikipedia, like having your mother-in-law or an enemy with you on your honeymoon, but what can you do, we all have to make peace with WP:NPOV. As for personal attacks, I don't see any. I have told User Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), and I am convinced that it is 100% correct, that having a Wikipedia article about him at Arthur Rubin may be a serious violation of his ability to function as a neutral admin free of WP:COI, especially since he is a mathematician/scientist and matters of faith may be concerned in some discussions. This is only a normal judgment. I have suggested to him to seek an anonymous user name so that justice not only be done, but it also be seen to be done, and there be no need to look over one's shoulder. It is not that complicated. The other issues you raise can all be discussed in a more relaxing and less threatening environment than this setting. Sincerely, IZAK 02:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Arthur: I have done much work and I will do my best to improve matters. In dating I used reliable sources. I hope to discuss this further with you. I need some time off for Shabbat. Thanks, IZAK 02:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I think I might withdraw the nomination if I see signs that articles and categories that DO NOT fit are removed. But I don't think I'll submit any more nominations for a few days, unless they're part of my proposed WikiProject Time proposals. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Arthur. IZAK 02:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Arthur, I have just spent considerable time adding appropriate sub-categories and taking out some of the larger more over-arching ones. All-in-all it is shaping up. Thanks for your patience. IZAK 13:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to above: I mean that currently the only content in most early categories is major sub-cats like Category:Torah which obviously don't apply to just that particular century. To make sense of the categories you have to find those articles actually relevant to that century, and just categorize them. Of course I have no objection to various chronologies being used in articles and lists, where the issues can (hopefully) be explained, but I don't think it is NPOV to use the Biblically-calculated dates in a category name, where the archaeological ones (not always too clear I know) would put things in a different century - which i think will often be the case. Johnbod 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the categories are new and they need some time to be filled, but trying to kill them off like this will not eliminate their need. Secondly, the Biblical and archaelogical are not usually off by many centuries in larger perspective, and one method is not more sacrosanct than the other. If not for the Biblical accounts and its related literature, the archaelogists would be clueless about much of that ancient period, but the latter is besides the point, because Jewish history regards the beginnings of the Jewish people as starting with Abraham, and few dispute that fact. IZAK 05:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cateogries need to be emptied of inappropriate material before you should consider filling them. I now think you should upmerge the subcategories, but NOT delete them, and place individual items in categories as appropriate. It's clear the vast majority of subcategories are wrong. But this now overlaps 3 or more WikeProjects, and I'm not sure where the appropriate discussion forum would be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arthur, as mentioned above, I have done further work, by putting in carefully calibrated sub-categories, and taking out some of the more general ones. This is a big job, but it's worth it and will benefit anyone, especially those who study history by centuries. So far I am trying to be objective and accurate and stick with well-known and defined sub-categories that can clearly fit into each appropriate Jewish history century category. Thanks, IZAK 13:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all. Most of the contents of most of the categories overlap greatly, to the point that the individual century categories are almost literally useless. There are perhaps a dozen articles of subcategories that actually belong specifically to the centuries in which they're categorized. These categories don't provide any useful context to categories like Jews and Judaism by country or Torah books. If a particular item is categorized in ten to twenty 'X by century' categories' I would have to respectfully suggest that the 'X by century' scheme in question needs to be either overhauled or consolidated into one category. -Sean Curtin 03:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sean, the time frames do indeed cover several centuries cannot be ignored so it is realistic to place whatever amount of century categries to cover any given the period. As simple humans, our lives span years and decades, but civilizations and cultures span centuries and millenia, that is just the way it is. IZAK 05:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. These categories do not seem helpful, and mainly just clutter up the categories section. The article Timeline of Jewish history probably is the best way to deal with the chronology aspect. Merging may put too many items directly in Category:Jewish history, but they can be re-diffused later. --Eliyak T·C 06:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Eliyak: Good to hear from you, but I can't resist responding since I recall that you wrote [1] something different to what you claim here, regarding a similar situation, a couple of months ago. You stated (emphasis mine): "I've noticed that recently, you have been removing categories from articles on the grounds that an article should not be categorized by a category and its parent, as is set out at WP:CAT#Guidlines. I would like to point out that in many cases multiple categorization in this way is necessary and even important, as is mentioned on that page and detailed further at WP:SUBCAT. For example, you recently removed Category:Orthodox Judaism from Category:Orthodox rabbis. While it is true that Category:Orthodox rabbis is in the subcategory Category:Orthodox Jews, it also bears a much more direct relationship to Category:Orthodox Judaism, and one would expect to find it in that category. I would especially point to WP:SUBCAT#User benefit rule. --Eliyak T·C 13:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)" --- so that I cannot understand your objections here. Thanks a lot, IZAK 08:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The situations are clearly different. For one thing, in that case the existence of either category was not in question. Secondly, how does placing Category:Jewish texts or Category:Jewish history by country in 21 categories, dealing with the 1st to 21st centuries, help users? Categories help users when they can contain a significant amount of information that relates directly to a coherent topic. I am, however, flattered that you are keeping track of my comments for future reference. Please continue to do so. ;-) --Eliyak T·C 19:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Eliyak: To clarify, Category:Jewish history by country is NOT in 21 categories. As I explained to Arthur, I started in Category:Jewish history as red-links, to launch the new categories, but I have removed them from there a few hours ago. Arthur jumped the gun and did not give me time to finish my work from a technical direction. Same goes for Category:Jewish texts, it was a start for placing one or two of the broadest items into the new categories so that they should not be absolute orphans, but I removed the broad categories there a few hours ago and I am now doing things in a more focused fashion, thus see the centuries in Category:Mishnah; Category:Rishonim; Category: Midrashim and more like that, trying to keep them within the main centuries of their creation and establishment. Not an impossible task, but it is time-consuming, and so no need to rush to judgment, as I have a good sense of what goes and does not go on Wikipedia (I just think that Arthur misjudged what I was doing and acted rashly by proposing a mass delete without getting my full feedback on what I had created for the benefit of all.) Thanks again, IZAK 14:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Keep: First of all, where do you guys find the time... Second, I think the category structure has merit, but not as currently used. "By-Century" categories are useful for things which are commonly categorized this way, such as births, deaths, publications, major events, etc. I might find it useful (although I would never actually use Wikipedia this way) to look at a Category of 10th-century Judaism, and see a list of articles covering main events and personalities, etc. Yes, this information could also be on a timeline, but a timeline is not accessible in the same way that a category is (from article links). So in summary, I would keep the structure, and let's see if IZAK can put the right articles in the right places. I don't see any use to putting things like "Torah" in these categories. It will be come a huge muddle. It has to be personalities, events, and publications. It's fine if some of those personalities are mythical or legendary (e.g., Abraham) — I don't really see the problem with that. If the articles already exist, it's too late to start paskening on their validity. But it can't be a strictly religious chronology — e.g., Book of Daniel and Deuteronomy will have to appear where modern scholars believe they belong, not where medieval rabbis believe they belong. But in general the articles themselves make clear what the historical status of personalities and publications are. That's about it. On a final note, the Arthur Rubin wiki page is just too funny. Honestly, you couldn't make this stuff up. Really made my day! —Dfass 11:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on my wiki page. I haven't looked at it in some time, it is pretty funny, actually. I still think my patent should go there, but I, of course, can't edit the page, except to remove errors. (My late mother probably should have an article, as well, but I may not write it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on where do you guys find the time.... I found one of IZAK's categories from looking at one of the WikiProject Time articles I monitor, and found it absurd. (It's one of the other ones I nominated in today's CfD.) I asked him about it, and, after getting what I considered a non-specific answer, I looked at some of the other categories he created and populated, and found most of the entries absurd, so I nominated them for deletion. I see some possible value to some of the categories and articles in those categories now, but there's still some discussion on some of the centuries which should be cleared, although possibly not removed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, just to clarify, Arthur is mixing in his observations about my creation of Category:Centuries of the future which I then made a sub-category of categories already on Wikipedia (not created by "me") Category:Futurology; Category:Future history and a few others that the human race (not "me") uses to try to "understand" and deal with centuries to come. Wikipedia (not "me") has articles about each century ending with the 31st century (mostly predictions about astronomy.) But that is besides the point here, because the fact remains that Jewish history covers about forty centuries, stretching from the time of its founding fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob times all the way to the 21st century so that is something that is not far-fetched, and with Wikipedia growing by millions of articles, and the Jewish articles have grown by leaps and bounds (I should know, I've been around for almost five years on Wikipedia) it's high time to have a even bigger categories to categorize the articles, and actually the new Category:Jewish history by centuries is mainly for sub-categories, that's why each one has a ((Parent category)) template on it. IZAK 13:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep too large a topic to merge. Possibly consider merging a few of the existing categories into ones containing several centuries, though that should be discussed by those working on such topis. DGG (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi DGG: There is plenty that heppened in Jewish history in each century so that there is no need to merge centuries. IZAK 13:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep on the grounds of oy gevalt! Gzuckier 16:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. chronological categories reflect real historical study by chronology. `'Míkka>t 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or break into meaningful segments of time delineated by important events 1492 was a watershed year for Jews in Spain, for example; having that a break point may make more sense than 1500 being the break-point. Carlossuarez46 00:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to change my !vote to (1) keep top category; (2) move all individual entries in the subcategories up to Category:Jewish history I can see a potential purpose to the categories , but the current status is of less than no benefit to potential users. Where would the appropriate discussion forum be? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur, you are just playing with words here, you are not contributing any new ideas. IZAK 13:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all and wait till we see how these categories and sub-categories are used. Deleting all these sub-categories before User:IZAK and others have a chance to put them to actual use and justify them is jumping the gun. -- Nahum 18:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Thank you Nahum. I am now working on fine-tuning and picking the most appropriate sub-categries to placed in each of the century sub-categories. IZAK 13:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge All -- there is no way that many cats are needed --T-rex 16:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There are too many categories at present. Since this is a Jewish topic CE and BCE are properly used. I would suggest a few subcategories, with breaks at the fall of Jerusalem in early 6th century BCE; End of exile; destruction of Herod's temple; as dividing points. The expulsion of the Sephadic Jews from Spain might be another, and the foundation of the modern state of Israel as the most recent. One or two more breaks are probably needed in the medieval period. All of these should be subcategories of Jewish History. I expect there is already a category (or several) for ancient Judah and Israel. These should not be duplicated in the proposed structure. Peterkingiron 23:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Peter: All the sub-categories and "breaks" you mention already exist, so there is no need for you to be concerned. The "BCE" and "CE" question is also not being discussed here. The new Category:Jewish history by centuries and it's century sub-categries are meant to cover all the centuries from the recorded, historical, and conventionally regarded beginnings of Jewish history until the present time. Thus in this system, stretches from the earliest roots of Jewish history, a period spanning essentially over forty centuries, and every Jewish history century sub-category counts and must be present to hold the key events, personalities and eras in each century, so nothing can be skipped or eliminated here. Thanks for your words, IZAK 08:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep --YoavD 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per above. Bhaktivinode 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, current category setup seems useful. --MPerel 00:09, 17 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:International Mister Gay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the main article was deleted, the template is up for deletion and the only remaining article is located in the appropriate parent. Otto4711 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per nom --T-rex 16:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Doczilla 07:17, 12 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Class A radio stations in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: hopelessly incomplete, only categorization by power I can find (where are B,C,D, and LP?) I don't see any value in categorizing by power, there are plenty of other categorizations which are far better maintained. Rtphokie 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. This is a characteristic that is related to the broadcast frequency rather then the station. If you asked me 30 years ago, I might have considered this a defining characteristic. But I'm not sure that it is the case today. Vegaswikian 21:53, 8 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - most of the contents is improper categorization of creators by the host website (a flavor of performer by venue) and much of the rest is for material hosted there. Since web content can be hosted on any number of sites that doesn't strike me as particularly defining. The articles are interlinked appropriately. Otto4711 20:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, like puting a WalMart category on every artist who sells their albums there. Carlossuarez46 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary category. Doczilla 07:17, 12 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 articles already appear in Category:Flash cartoons and/or Category:Lists of flash cartoon episodes). It is not clear that the convention of Category:Animated short films applies to this case, as Picking's creations are online flash cartoons, which may not be directly comparable to animated short films. For one thing, the cartoons were created – not directed – by him. The convention of Category:Flash cartoons, which does not subcategorise by creator, seems to be more relevant. There is also the question of whether 3-5 articles (excluding the main biography and an article about a website) require a separate category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jonti Picking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization under both the eponymous section and the performer by performance section. Otto4711 20:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 00:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per double overcategorization. Doczilla 07:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the one below & rename Category:Films directed by Jonti Picking to match other subcats of Category:Animated short films. Johnbod 18:18, 13 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, per above. All category members already appear in Category:Flash cartoons. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Weebl and Bob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category. The material is all interlinked and appropriately categorized. Otto4711 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 00:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominatino, precedent. Doczilla 07:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the one above & rename Category:Films directed by Jonti Picking to match other subcats of Category:Animated short films . Johnbod 18:19, 13 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brunching Shuttlecocks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category unlikely to expand for a defunct website. Otto4711 19:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Doczilla 07:19, 12 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:University of London, with no prejudice to re-creation if more content is developed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of London Institute in Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category has only one entry, that being itself. Moglex 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reasonable prospect of significant expansion. Note that the category doesn't actually include itself, but rather includes the eponymous article University of London Institute in Paris. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and updated information. There are now sub-categories for people associated with the institute. Whilst these are currently small, this is not uncommon for small colleges and institutes of the University and this keeps the overall category structure consistent and navigateable. Removing this category will make it harder to follow. Timrollpickering 13:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these are faculty, administrators and the like, they belong in Category:Academics of the University of London Institute in Paris, convention of academics by university. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sponsors are in the "people associated with" categories, convention for people by UK universities as they're not "academics". These are in turn sub-categories of the institution's category for a decent structure. Timrollpickering 19:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but to be safe upmerge to Category:University of London. There is simply too little for this category at this time. Vegaswikian 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I cannot agree the suggestion of Vegaswikian. The constituent colleges of the University of London are largely independent of each other, and operate almost as if they were separate univerities. I cannot suggest a good solution. Peterkingiron 23:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nearly empty category. Doczilla 07:19, 12 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. As a category for eras by century, it should not include pages such as Category:19th century, but rather pages such as Category:19th century eras. However, as all such pages are to be deleted per this CFD, there is no need for this category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical eras by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: contains only the century categories, so it's already included in Category:Centuries. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, plus every century in Category:Centuries is both a sub-cat and an article there. Pointless duplication seems to come with the territory here. Johnbod 19:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi John: Please see WP:SUBCAT#User benefit rule that duplication is OK if it benefits the readers who may not know as much as you. Thanks, IZAK 09:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's to know? That there was a sixteenth century? WP:SUBCAT#User benefit rule says that articles can be in a subcat as well as the main cat, not that the entire contents can appear twice, fully visible on the same page. A category titled as "by century" should have little or nothing in the main category, as the main category is not "by" any century at all. Basic stuff. Johnbod 17:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because an Era and a Century are two entirely different notions/cocepts/constructs, yet they do overlap, hence the need for this category. Most eras of history often run across many centuries of history, and this category is a welcome and usefull tool to access this field of knowldege on Wikipedia. See related discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 10#Century eras; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8#Category:Centuries of the future and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8#Category:Jewish history by centuries. Thank you, IZAK 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clear that all those categories in their present (as nominated) state were not helpful to users. I now see potential benefit in the Jewish castegories, but all the others should be deleted and repurposed if regenerated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this seems awfully similar too the discussion for Category:Jewish_history_by_centuries above; the structure is a useful one, in both cases. Gzuckier 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are completely different. The one above is for Jewish history by centuries, similar to French history by centuries etc etc. This one attempts to set up a parallel structure of "eras", which are anything someone has attached an "age" or "era" to in the title, plus any other articles someone chooses to add. There is absolutely no reason why these should be separated, and no objective definition of an "era" is possible. Johnbod 14:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overcategorization. In theory, this category would contain subcategories such as "Category:Eras of the 14th century," but could such categories be justified? As it stands now, it virtually duplicates Category:Centuries. --Eliyak T·C 19:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete having two parallel numbering schema is invitation for confusion. There are lots of "eras" - by fashion, by leader, by later historian's labelling and do not coincide world wide. Carlossuarez46 00:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or merge to Centuries. This category tree needs work. The present category is a super-category to years, which one automatically links in writing historical articles. The attempt in the "main" article to list eras is doomed to failure, since eras are commently defined as starting and ending with particular historical events. Thus Britian has "Georgian", "Regency", "Victorian", and "Edwardian" periods roughly linked to reigns. These will be meaningless in other countries. Similarly some historians write of a "Long 18th century" 1688-1815 - from the Glorious Revolution to Waterloo. Sweden has the Age of Liberty (1720-1770s), when the legislature was dominant. Chinese hisotry is often classified by dynasty. American history as "ante bellum" (i.e. 1783 to Civil War). I expect there are articles (and categories) on several of these topics, which could usefully be grouped in a category "historical eras". However, in my view, attempts to impose any worldwide eras is doomed to failure. Peterkingiron 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Ocicat 20:05, 15 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. At the time of this closure, there are six articles in the category, all of which have other suitable homes. A quick overview of the articles did not suggest any other pages which might be appropriately placed in this category.

Of the six category members, one (Experimental Film (song)) is miscategorised (it's similar to placing 12 Angry Men (play) in Category:Sidney Lumet or Category:United Artists, based on the fact that they directed and distributed, respectively, the film 12 Angry Men).

The inclusion of two other articles is at least somewhat questionable, though not necessarily inappropriate: Y-O-U (a rock band that has collaborated with the Chapman brothers) and The Brothers Chaps (person by project categorisation, possibly justified by the fact that the brothers are known almost solely due to their connection to the website).

The other three articles are Homestar Runner, Strong Bad Sings (an album, though I suppose the closest equivalent would be a film soundtrack), and Where's an Egg? (a computer game). Thus, we have a category populated by 3-5 articles.

In the end, the decisive factor was the fact that the articles are fully interlinked, as noted by Otto. All articles are linked from Homestar Runner and all prominently link to Homestar Runner, The Brothers Chaps, or both. In addition, Strong Bad Sings prominently links to Y-O-U, and vice versa. The navigational value of the category, beyond that provided by the main article, is relatively low. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homestar Runner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category. Cat is capturing such loosely related articles as a song for which the creators of HR made a video along with improper person by project categorization. Everything is appropriately interlinked and categorized elsewhere. Otto4711 19:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The category holds articles relating to the Homestar Runner website, including specific video animations. The biography articles are those people who are chiefly notable through the Homestar site itself. --Eliyak T·C 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC. Doczilla 07:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's more here than just the standard subcategories. Where would Y-O-U go if not here?--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Due South (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unneeded eponymous TV category. Following recategorization of episodes and removal of improper performer by performance articles what's left doesn't warrant a category. Otto4711 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per well stated nomination. Doczilla 07:20, 12 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wizards of Waverly Place (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category. Material doesn't warrant categorization. Otto4711 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overcategorisation per nom, Tewfik^Talk 18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 07:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Give it time.  Chantessy  21:21, 13 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. Vegaswikian 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of London External Programme to Category:University of London External System

Propose renaming Category:People associated with the University of London External Programme to Category:People associated with the University of London External System

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of the University of London External Programme to Category:Alumni of the University of London External System

Nominator's rationale: Rename all to reflect the university changing the name. The main article is now at University of London External System. Timrollpickering 12:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on - I know we want consensus but is a relist of what should be a speedy rename really necessary? Otto4711 19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am rebelliously editing the closed debate to say sorry to be this snarky. Otto4711 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom, Johnbod 19:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. A proposal without objections is clearly supported by those who watch these. I do not believe that we need to comment on each and every nomination especially with the increase in load here. We had 94 nominations in one day this week. I am going to close this as a rename. Vegaswikian 22:06, 8 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trailer Park Boys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous TV show category. Everything is interlinked and templated. Otto4711 18:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategrisation per nom and precedent, Tewfik^Talk 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. Doczilla 07:21, 12 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. FWIW, the category was created less than 30 minutes after the creation of the single articles that populates it, so it was likely created specifically to house that article. No depopulation seems to have taken place. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Juvenile deliquency films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as non-defining and subjective, or at least Rename to Category:Juvenile delinquency films. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining and subjective, and suffers from the same problem most "films about" categories have: how much about the subject must the film be and what 3rd party RSes tell us it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective per precedent, though the cat seems to have been depopulated. Tewfik^Talk 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective category, although if I was depopulated by the person who nominated it for deletion, that's inappropriate. Doczilla 07:22, 12 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:Centuries in the future to match category:Years in the future. This is a procedural cleanup, but otherwise this close would have been a "keep" result.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centuries of the future (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It's a mishmash of future centuries and events which may (or may not) occur in the future, and some miscellaneous categories and articles loosly related to the future. If reserved for future centuries and millennia only, it might be useful.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How else would we categorise these "future" years? It seems that the inclusion of non years could be remedied simply assuming they all meet our content policies. Tewfik^Talk 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We could merge them into the existing Category:Years in the future, which already includes decades, centuries, and millennia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or we could not, for example, see WP:SUBCAT#User benefit rule. Thanks, IZAK 09:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What benefit? I can see a possible benefit for a category with only the centuries, although the detailed benefit of Category:Centuries + Category:Future → Category:Centuries of the future escapes me. The category as started is not of potential benefit. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (a) This nomination makes no sense. If the nominator agrees that: "If reserved for future centuries and millennia only, it might be useful" then he should discuss and edit the category but not nominate it for deletion! (b) "Years" is imprecise, because a "year" is not a "century". (c) It's not a mish-mash. The category is for already existing Wikipedia articles and content about specific future centuries. (d) The category itself is a sub-category of legitimate parent-categories, such as Category:Future history; category:Futurology; Category:Prediction and a few more (where else would one place a category for centuries that have not happened yet?) (e) This category is simply ONE category for already existing Wikipedia articles with articles about centuries of the future: such as the 21st century; 22nd century; 23rd century; 24th century etc. (f) If the nominator has disagreements he is welcome to discuss them (which he had initiated himself, and was supposed to be doing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time#era categories....) rather than rushing to delete because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ITANNOYSME. See related discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8#Category:Historical eras by century; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 10#Century eras and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8#Category:Jewish history by centuries. Thank you, IZAK 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Discussion would be appropriate if there were a bot which would delete all except specific future time periods from the category. I doubt that's the case. Clear and start over might be appropriate, although what millennia are doing "here" is another question. On the other hand, as centuries are now in order in Category:Centuries (for which I do appreciate your work, although it could be better documented), it's easy to tell which centuries are future. Thinking it over, perhaps Category:Years in the future could be renamed to Category:Future time periods, or some other more appropriate name. But, this category is both of little use in regard the specific time intervals and of less than no use for the other articles and categories. I should add that this category being both contained in and containing Category:Years in the future is questionable.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arthur: You cannot deny the fact that Wikipedia has articles about future centuries. No contortions and rollovers with new names are required when all this category does is give a name and home to those centuries and to the topics associated with it. Thanks, IZAK 02:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it were restricted to future centuries (not millennia, or longer time periods) and topics related to those centuries, (not the future in general) it might be (marginally) useful. But I cannot imagine what a related topic might be, which would make it category:Centuries intersected with category:Future, which has only marginal utility. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep well, you're getting closer, but somewhere right now a teacher is assigning some class an essay on what the 25th century might be like and those kids are turning to wikipedia. Gzuckier 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The future century articles belong in a category like this one. However, many of its subcategories are also newly-created and perhaps do not have much potential (for the next few centuries, anyway). --Eliyak T·C 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are actually reasons to tie these together. For example, stories set in different versions of the 31st Century could be useful to compare. Doczilla 07:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't those be in Category:31st century? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:42, 14 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.

Propose renaming Category:Jim Jones albums to Category:Jim Jones (rapper) albums

Propose renaming Category:Jim Jones songs to Category:Jim Jones (rapper) songs

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article – Jim Jones (rapper) – and avoid any possible confusion with other people named 'Jim Jones' (note that 'Jim Jones', when used without any parenthetical disambiguator, refers to this person). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No objections to renaming the category I created. Katharineamy 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination and category creator. Doczilla 07:24, 12 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Requests for verification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, since Wikipedia:Requests for verification seems to be inactive. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete inactive cat per nom, Tewfik^Talk 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inactive. Doczilla 07:25, 12 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 both as internal maintenance. The only category members are a WikiProject and a task force. While most WikiProjects have their own to-do lists or templates, there is little reason for the projects themselves to be placed in "to do" categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:To do, priority Collaboration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:To do, Priority Collaboration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, or at least Merge into Category:To do, priority undefined. I suspect this was created by mistake. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:42, 8 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Construction equipment rental companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, article/list in category space, with only one categorised article and lots of redlinks in the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dropped the introduction and added a good parent Category:Vehicle rental. Vegaswikian 00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew c ^[talk] 16:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It currently has four entries. Is this realistically expandable? Tewfik^Talk 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are many companies in this business, some like Hertz Equipment Rentals are large and significant players but don't have articles yet. The rental categories just underwent a cleanup to refocus them on the actual business. So it would be expected that there are going to be adds to that structure over time. So it may be a question of keeping everything in well defined sub cats or putting a mish mosh of articles in the main category. Vegaswikian 22:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This is a type of business so it needs a category. List shows the category has potential for expansion. Hmains 05:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly expandable as it only covers North America at present and there are large companies in this field in other regions. Ravenhurst 13:40, 10 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Werewolves in fiction to Category:Werewolf fiction

Nominator's rationale: More specific names distinguish b/w articles about characters, which belong to Category:Fictional werewolves, and those about media which would belong to proposed cats. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 02:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also proposing:

• Category:Werewolves in written fiction to Category:Werewolf literature
• Category:Werewolves in film and television to Category:Werewolf films and Category:Werewolf television
• Category:Werewolves in games to Category:Werewolf games

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobogganoggin (talk • contribs)

• Oppose. Werewolves appear in fiction that is not werewolf fiction. For example, the character Man-Wolf debuts in The Amazing Spider-Man, a publication which no one would call werewolf fiction. Use the more inclusive terms with in in them. Doczilla 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although I wasn't able to locate an article on Man-Wolf, if one is made, my scheme would have his article placed in Category:Fictional werewolves. Which ever way it goes, though, how about splitting up Category:Werewolves in film and television? I would think werewolves in films belongs as a subcat to Category:Monster movies, but not if TV shows are included. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder why you couldn't find it. Man-Wolf redirects to John Jameson (comics). Anyway, I still think the more inclusive term serves a better purpose. Doczilla 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OIC... I must have left out the hyphen. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. per Doczilla, and whether comics are literature is open to debate, and for werewolf films and television, that should be deleted because it suffers from the same problems that most "films about" have: how much about the subject matter must the film be and what 3rd party RSes will tell us it is at least that much? Are werewolf films any film in which a werewolf apprears. God help us! Carlossuarez46 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew c ^[talk] 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Werewolf fiction" is not the commonly used term for all the possible topics here, and thus and much too restrictiv--as are the others. DGG (talk) 15:42, 9 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 as nominated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Poetry collections by Margaret Atwood to Category:Poetry by Margaret Atwood

Propose renaming Category:Poetry collections by Leonard Cohen to Category:Poetry by Leonard Cohen

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per convention of Category:Poems by author. Otto4711 15:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose these fit in books cats as well; the nom does not allow for this. If an author has articles on both individual works and collections, then I would not normally support keeping two categories going, except maybe for really major figures, but where there is only one category, that is fine, and forms its own convention. If renamed per nom, it would have to be removed from the books categories - what is the point of that? Johnbod 19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Whilst I understand what is being said above and it makes sense, the aim should be to provide some standardisation and consistency across "all" authors, poets etc. categories. At the moment the idea would be if a category for poetry is supportable then it should be called "Poetry by ....". Otherwise any poetry would be category sorted into a number of inconsistent homes, "books by", "works by", "poetry by", "poetry collections by" and maybe others. One type of work should appear in one naming of category. The one exception should perhaps be if there are work forms that as yet don't have an established "xxxx by author" category they should then go in "Works by ..." :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I get the remove-from-books-categories argument, but I think the "Poetry by" form was designed to include collections as mentioned in the recent poetry nomination I proposed. So having separate collections categories seems to undermine that.--Mike Selinker 18:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination, Mike. Doczilla 07:26, 12 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James Merrill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 15:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete eponymous. Doczilla 07:27, 12 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ian Rankin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Contents are interlinked and templatized. Otto4711 14:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a useful supplement to other methods of navigation. Ravenhurst 13:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please review WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Otto4711 18:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clear delete per WP:OC. Doczilla 07:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Johnbod 18:21, 13 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) 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Sandbaggers TV episodes to Category:The Sandbaggers episodes

Nominator's rationale: per WP:EPISODEElsesteps 14:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as suggested, per conventions of Category:Television episodes by series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per conventions. Doczilla 07:28, 12 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 Category:Comic book publishing companies. This is too small a distinction, as most publishers reprint material. However, this discussion does suggest that all the "comic book publisher" categories should be looked at for renaming into their "comics" form.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comic-book packagers to Category:Comics packagers

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per convention of Category:Comics. Otto4711 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Comic book publishing companies. This is too narrow and to subtle a distinction to merit is own category. There is no Comic-book packagers or Comics packagers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge following BrownHairedGirl - a number of these are already people who reprint titles. (Emperor 21:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose, it's a good little category doing no harm and a formative part of the history of the medium. Also saddened that I missed a large number of discussions which seem to have renamed several categories from comic books to comics with no real reason other than to follow perceived convention. Hiding Talk 10:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Hiding. It's not the same thing. The packagers differ from those commonly recognized as the publishers. A comic book packager does not package other kinds of comics. I've been wondering: Where did this supposed convention come from? There are too many kinds of comics (e.g., stand-up comics) for this to be consistently clear to all readers. Who decided this and when? Slow down on these changes to comics left and right. Give WikiProject Comics participants time to discuss this. Doczilla 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Stand-up comics are categorized as comedians. My understanding was that Wikiproject Comics had already resolved the issue, in favor of "comics." Otto4711 13:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In addition to the question of whether to merge, please also comment on whether the category ought to be renamed – assuming it is kept – to Category:Comic book packagers (i.e. without the dash in "Comic-book"). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason why we should? I mean, is it just another for the sake of it move? Is there any greater clarity in that result? I'm not opposed, it just feels like change for changes sake. There's so much else that needs fixing I can drop this proposed change way down my current to do list. Hiding Talk 10:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the discussion is already open ... and the change will be made by a bot. It really doesn't take much effort to make the change at this point. Of course, the change shouldn't be made solely for its own sake, but rather out of consideration of linguistic accuracy (i.e. which is more accurate: "comic-book packager" or "comic book packager"). Although, again, this question is relevant only if the category is kept. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotcha. My dictionary doesn't recognise either comic-book or comic book, so I'll leave that up to US people to sort out. It may be that at the time packagers were operating, the term comic-book was used, and in that case I'd argue it's more correct to use that than amend. In reply to Otto4711, I don't ever recall us at WikiProject comics agreeing to using comics as opposed to comic book. I think the idea is to use whichever phrase applies. If you're categorising somthing which concerns comic books, then call the category something like comic books. If you're categorising all forms, use comics. That's my opinion. These packaging companies were American companies packaging material for American comic books, is my understanding. Makes sense to call them comic book packagers, or comic-book packagers. I admit it's hard to pin down the various uses of the terms, not made easy by the many different terms used for the art-form, from sequential art to pictorial narratives to comics to funnies to cartooning. Wading through all of those with WP:NPOV in mind is enough to frazzle anyone's mind. When you factor in national differences and systemic bias too, god help us all. :) Hiding Talk 11:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BHG. I thought about this a while and didn't jump in till now, but we really don't make a distinction for most other fully-intergrated sales channels: retailers includes those with or without their own branded stuff, distribution in house or contracted, OEMs or otherwise, and looking at comic books as a product, I think it really doesn't make sense to break them out this way. Carlossuarez46 01:04, 10 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books in the At Issue series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Non-notable publisher's series with only one item and no head article. (And could one really be written?) lquilter 04:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Doczilla 07:29, 12 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern Library 100 best non-fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a publisher's list of "best x". Considered as an award, it's non-notable, non-defining, and overcat. lquilter 04:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clearly a published list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Prove It. Carlossuarez46 18:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. We can't copy a published list. Doczilla 07:30, 12 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dinosaurs discovered in Arabic countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Dinosaurs has been categorizing articles by taxon (such as Category:Theropods), by period (such as Category:Triassic dinosaurs), and by continent (such as Category:Dinosaurs of South America), per consensus within the project. "Category:Dinosaurs discovered in Arabic countries", was not created with the consensus of the project, and is based on modern political boundaries (or human language classifications), and is not based on the natural dinosaur groupings one would expect to see (type, time, or paleo-location). Without biting the good-faith user who created the category, it must be said that a category of ancient animals based on modern political boundaries is probably not really useful for readers interested in finding clear and accurate information on dinosaurs. See also the discussion about this category on WT:DINO and this related deletion discussion. Finally, a judgement about which countries can be considered "Arabic" countries is contentious, and, frankly, beyond the purview of this WikiProject. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I just don't see how this category is helpful for organizing or finding information. It's an odd choice for a category, as there's no definition of what Arabic countries are, or indication why their dinosaurs should be considered together. At this point, since there are no named dinosaurs from the Arabian Peninsula, it's mainly a category for dinosaurs of the middle Cretaceous of northern Africa, in which case a better name would be Dinosaurs of the Continental Intercalaire (the geological formation most of them are from). J. Spencer 04:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has put more on the talk page about the boundaries and purpose of the category. It's for members of the League of Arab States, and it is intended to be educational, showing the inhabitants of these nations that there were dinosaurs in their nations. J. Spencer 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-as above. I agree categories for geological formations would be more useful than countries or amorphous regions based on human culture, as they would group animals that lived in roughly the same place and time. Dinoguy2 06:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Divisions by country is meaningless when it comes to dinosaurs. Circeus 17:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, what lived some place 65 million years ago and who lives there now is an odd intersection. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename and repurpose to Category:Dinosaurs of Arabia as a geographic division (part of Africa once, now considered part of Asia, hence having African dinos) 132.205.99.122 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Category:Dinosaurs of the Middle East, maybe? You'd just have to decide exactly where the ME ends and Africa and Asia begin. The ME is often treated as a unique 'subcontinent'. Dinoguy2 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • The Middle East would be the same as Arabic countries, ill-defined, and not geographically supportable. Arabia is a piece of land that rifted off Africa and collided with Asia, and thus definable. 132.205.99.122 19:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As J states above, there are no named dinosaurs from the Arabian peninsula. The category would be empty. We don't generally create empty categories, or even categories for just a few articles. The consensus on WP:DINO has been to create lasting categories which have a decent amount of articles in them. Otherwise, the Arabian dinosaurs category might well be useful. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as intersection of two unrelated things. "First the dinosaurs came... then the Arabs came..." Grutness...wha? 23:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spurious and irrelevant connection. Ravenhurst 13:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per snowball. Doczilla 07:30, 12 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 both. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Science fiction short story collections by Harlan Ellison to Category:Short story collections by Harlan Ellison

Nominator's rationale: Redundant underpopulated category. Posted a comment at Talk:Harlan Ellison#categories and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction#redundant categories and got positive feedback. Also suggest merging Category:Fantasy short story collections by Harlan Ellison Sbacle 02:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete both as empty. Otto4711 05:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both - as emtpy. Still not sure where the content went though! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The missing content is my fault. There were two or three books in each category and I moved them about a month ago. I was unfamiliar with the proper procedure for these things, and didn't realize I wasn't supposed to do that. I can look through my history and move them back or let you know which books were in which category if you want. The reason I moved them originally is that most of these books don't fall completely into one genre or the other. For instance, I think Ellison Wonderland was originally in the s.f. category. But two of its stories ("Gnomebody", and "Rain, Rain, Go Away") are really more aptly categorized as fantasy. (according to Harlan Ellison: The Edge of Forever, by Ellen Weil & Gary Wolfe, Ohio State University Press, p 65.) Most of his later books are even more genre-ambiguous. The only Collection that is entirely s.f. is A Touch of Infinity which doesn't have a page (and doesn't really need one.) Sbacle 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment By the way, I did contact the creator of the categories over a month ago. The user has not been active since July. Sbacle 13:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all 3 and repopulate per nom & Sbacles comments. Johnbod 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both subcats per nom. Not only is this division impossible to apply, but I think it's also worth noting that Ellison himself vociferously deprecates all such labeling for his work. Cgingold 12:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Nominator has learned the correct procedure. No harm, no foul. Doczilla 07:31, 12 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 speedily deleted by Vegaswikian as empty. Procedural non-admin close. Bencherlite^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations by field (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Nominator's rationale: Empty for several months and redundant of Category:Organizations by subject. (Part of an incomplete project to clean up Category:Organizations, but by subject fits in better with the Category:Categories by subject tree.) lquilter 02:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.– Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:77 Boadrum drummers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as performers by performance, the list in 77 Boadrum is enough. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per nom --T-rex 16:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Doczilla 07:32, 12 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.