< March 9	March 11 >

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, for two reasons: (1) it is not clear (from the category's contents or the discussion) what types of pages the category should contain; (2) the purpose or value of the category is not self-evident, and no clear purpose was offered in the discussion.

The title of the current category and the nature of its members (two project pages and three user pages) suggests that this is not a category for articles (in general, articles and non-article pages are not categorised together). Thus, renaming to Category:Common sense, which is a title of a category for articles related to the topic of common sense, is not entirely a viable option. (A similar, though less pronounced, problem exists with Category:Common sense in Wikipedia.)

If it is intended to be a user category, then either Category:Wikipedians who use common sense or Category:Wikipedians who have common sense would be workable titles, although both categories would be likely to be deleted as potentially divisive, potentially offensive to those not in the category, and as reflective of categorisation on the basis of a miscellaneous sentiment (see here).

If it is intended to be a category for pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, then its utility and scope are not self-evident. Is it intended to be a category solely for project pages which discuss common sense? If so, what is the organisational value of such a category beyond what might be provided by a brief "See also" section"? Is it indended to be a category for project pages (e.g. guidelines and policies) which are considered to be common sense? If so, who decides which guidelines and policies are "common sense"? And, again, how does such categorisation more effectively organise pages and help navigation between them? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Does not appear to be a proper formulation of a category, and given the creator's recent actions (Igorberger (talk · contribs)), I fear it is POV motivated. Perhaps rename to "Category:Common sense", which might then allow usage at not only WP:SENSE, but also articles such as common sense, appeal to tradition or Darwin Awards. (Otherwise, delete) ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One for MfD, no? Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename Have to agree that this appears to have been created as a POV contribution in the heat of the moment by its creator. The POV component is probably encapsulated best by the creator (given his recent edits) adding himself to the category in the first instance. Either should be deleted here or at MfD (as per Johnbod) - but the alternate is to rename to Common Sense.--VS ^talk 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to know if User:Igorberger is currently blocked? If so, can I suggest that the proposal for deletion either be delayed until he's unblocked, or the deadline (in any) extended until after the time that he's unblocked, so that he can have a say in the deletion? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look at his talk page - Igor has been directly invited and he has responded in the positive. He has also never been blocked in situation such as this.--VS ^talk 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been invited here by VirtualSteve to comment, eventhough I am banned from editng Wikipedia namespace, which I believe is not commonsense, because it takes away my rights as an editor to contribute to the shaping of consenses. When I fisrt created the category, I did so because I thought there is WikiCommonSense and it was in good faith, but since then I was proven that Wikipedia cares more about policing and protecting Wikipedia from any controversy, and that is not commonsense. Please delete, it is not appropriate with the current atmosphere of Wikipedia, unless the current atmosphere is the today's WikiCommonSense. Igor Berger (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename I have to agree that there seems to be a deficit in common sense on Wikipedia, but I don't think that means that the category necessarily needs to be deleted. Can someone please explain to me in what sense the category is improperly forumulated?
On the other hand, I have no particular problem with it being renamed, as suggested above, if that where consensus leads, although I think it somewhat undermines the specific purpose of the category. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other project related categories that are formulated as "WikiNounNoun" without spaces or other grammatical elements? As I noted, perhaps it could be renamed "Common Sense" or "Common Sense in Wikipedia", if that is the intention. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Common Sense in Wikipdia" sounds fine. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is also the whole issue of what is placed into the category. Currently this category holds 5 or 6 items - some of which are actual editors. Does this mean that when any editor adds a cat link to it s/he is stating that s/he has or is endowed with wikipedia common sense - or alternatively does an editor have to pass a certain bar to be afforded the "right" to be a member? I hope you will understand if I chortle softly at the proposition.--VS ^talk 06:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, as long as it's a soft chortle. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I like to see that there is still some common sense left. I named it with camel casing because that is the original wiki format, but we do not use camel casing here so we can rename it to what ZimZalaBim has recommended. I have added 3 articles to the category that I thought represent Wikipedia common sense, of course others may feel differently and are welcome to add or subtract. As far as VirtualSteve's concern, of what editor can add themselves to the category, why not let the editors decide, and see how the common sense is. We do not need rules and policy for everything, because that is not Wikipedia common sense. So if we can come to some common sense agreement here I will change my vote to Keep Igor Berger (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although some users have placed themselves in there, this doesn't appear to be a UCFD candidate so debate belongs here. Even so, there's little these have in common (even the choice that these evince Common Sense is purely POV). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete A little while ago, the category "Fictional characters by religion" as well as it's subcategories were deleted. The reasoning for this was that it's unlikely that people will look for characters based on what religion they adhere to. You can review the the discussion here. Since it's been concluded that these Wikipedians are right, don't their arguments also apply to fictional characters who do not believe in any religion? It was concluded that in the case of characters for whom religion is a defining trait, that there are better categories that can be used. This is also true of characters who are nonbelievers. Take Rorschach for example, simply putting him in the Objectivism category is far more useful than inclusion in a category for atheists. Calling him an Objectivist is more specific, and says more about what beliefs actually motivate the character. Atheism by itself leaves his motivations vague since it has no dogma attached to it. And as with specific religions, a character's atheism isn't usually what the character is known for. In Clone High, Joan of Arc's atheism is just a joke, and doesn't effect the show anymore than Homer Simpson's Protestantism effects The Simpsons. Ash Loomis (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Category has not been tagged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks, I went back and tagged it. Ash Loomis (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I came to similar conclusions when I contemplated creating Category:Fictional antisemites, figured it would be better just to but Cartmen in Category:Antisemitism, becuase how many characters can you think of that can be defined by their prejudices?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not relevant, not determinable, not defining, mostly OR. We shouldn't have the real people cat either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a relevant characteristic for some fictional characters, but restrict to those where atheism is relevant and important. If there is a real people cat, then why not have a fictional one? 70.55.84.89 (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You could say the exact same thing for the religion categories, and that argument doesn't cut it for them either. As I wrote in my initial rationale, atheism is rarely a defining there are more specific categories that can be used for characters when it is. I think atheism/religion categories are more useful for real people because in real life people only usually go public with their religious stance if it's an important part of their lives and/or careers. For example, Richard Dawkins has devoted a large portion of his work to promoting atheism while Matt Thiessen performs Christian rock as a career. In fiction however, people tend to go hog wild with adding characters to religion/atheism categories based on irrelevant details. A reference to them going to Catholic church once, or stating that they think religion is dumb is usually all it takes. I admit this does happen with articles on real people as well, but it's less common and I've found it is dealt with more easily. Ash Loomis (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment for fictional characters, religion can be collapsed to religious characters and atheist characters, as a lot of fiction does not feature real religions. But there is significant amount of fiction with characters that behave like Richard Dawkins, and where anti-theism is the defining core of their characters. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - After some more thought I've actually decided that we really shouldn't have religion and atheism categories for fictional or real people. I think "Atheist thinkers and activists" is a much better category for people like Dawkins and "Canadian performers of Christian music" is better for people like Thiessen. They're more specific and helpful in that they talk about what these people actually do with their lives. Peter Murphy may be a Muslim and Warren Ellis may be an atheist, but these don't have a real impact on their careers, art and lives. The same goes for Fictional characters, it's rarely an important factor in the story and when it is there are better categories that can be used. And I must say, a category for "religious" and "atheist" characters is even vaguer than a "Fictional Characters By Religion" categories. A character in that category could be anything from a devout Catholic priest travelling the land and converting people to a guy who mentioned having a Bar Mitzvah in his youth. If you know of a notable character whose anti-theism is an important factor, put them in Criticism of Religion, like Dudeman5685 put Cartman in antisemitism.Ash Loomis (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or possibly rename to Category:Fictional atheist thinkers and activists (as a counterpart to Category:Atheist thinkers and activists). The category should be reserved for characters whose atheism is central to their persona, and/or for those who actively promote atheism. Cgingold (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This category really is not analagous to Category:Fictional antisemites, because unlike it's real-life counterpart, Category:Antisemites, that category would NOT be disallowed for BLP concerns. To the best of my knowledge, authors cannot sue for defamation of fictional characters! :) Cgingold (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although reluctantly because I don't think the "characters by religion" deal should've been deleted. It's hard to say how being atheist is more central to a character than being Catholic would be to Father Mulcahy or Buddhism to Connie Souphanousinphone.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Culture of Las Vegas, Nevada to Category:Culture of Las Vegas

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is clearly not restricted to the city. In fact most of what is in the category is not in the city proper. So a rename to match the main article for the city would mean that almost everything should be removed from the category. This is based on the same logic as in the LA culture nomination below. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the issue can be worked out and a consistent naming structure can be come up with. Reguardless of the presense of (IMHO) mis-categorized articles, these categories are named for scope of the city, not the metro area, with or without the state added. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the presence of the state name does not change whether the city limits are bring properly applied to the articles in the category. - Dravecky (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd be happy if all "of city" categories implicitly covered the metro areas, and all city categories had a state. If we followed those guidelines, we'd never need a debate like this again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for my reasons given for the below cat (LA). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Culture of Los Angeles, California to Category:Culture of Los Angeles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is clear from the contents of this category that it is not intended to be a city category. The contents like Category:Los Angeles area museums and Category:Orange County, California culture clearly go beyond the bounds of the city as the recently renamed category would imply as the limits. In the discussions like this, there have been comments that with renames like this, all items not in the city proper should be removed. With this rename, the category can contain items in the broad area know as Los Angeles. Be that the city, the county, Greater Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Basin, the Los Angeles Metro Area, or what ever. If someone sees a need to break out the city only items then recreating Category:Culture of Los Angeles, California for the city only items would be a reasonable choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming for now. Please allow the CfR for Los Angeles below to run its course. If the consensus there is to keep the category names as is, this category should be renamed to conform to the other categories. But if the consensus there is to rename the categories, this particular category shouldn't be renamed the other way around. Either they all use Los Angeles or they all use Los Angeles, California. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is about more then a simple rename as proposed below. It is to discuss best how to deal with the entire naming issue. The nominations below are using a rename that did not have consensus as their justification. We need to understand the impacts of this type of change and come to a better understanding. As it is, other nominations like the ones below have had many comments about removing everything from outside the city proper. This would require more work and more categories. So I believe that the other discussions should be held while we have a discussion here on how best to deal with this in the long run. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the issue can be worked out and a consistent naming structure can be come up with. Reguardless of the presense of (IMHO) mis-categorized articles, these categories are (IMHO) named for scope of the city, not the metro area, with or without the state added. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the presence of the state name does not change whether the city limits are bring properly applied to the articles in the category. - Dravecky (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd be happy if all "of city" categories implicitly covered the metro areas, and all city categories had a state. If we followed those guidelines, we'd never need a debate like this again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the notion that LA's culture isn't bounded by the corporate limits, but the rename doesn't clean that up. These "culture of" categories should be based on some definable area - the census bureau's SMSAs perhaps - that includes the 'burbs, because the culture of LA (of which I know more than a little), includes the beach communities of Redondo Beach, California, Manhattan Beach, California, Hermosa Beach, California and Santa Monica, California; the gay culture of West Hollywood, California; the theme parks in Burbank, California, Buena Park, California, and Anaheim, California; the Latino culture in East Los Angeles, California; the culture of wealth and privilege centered in Beverly Hills, California. All outside the city limits of LA. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 19:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Airports in Houston to Category:Airports in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Houston to Category:Geography of Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Houston to Category:Visitor attractions in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Houston to Category:Transportation in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Houston to Category:Television stations in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Houston media‎ to Category:Media in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:History of Houston to Category:History of Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Government of Houston to Category:Government of Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Parks in Houston to Category:Parks in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Houston to Category:Buildings and structures in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Neighborhoods in Houston to Category:Neighborhoods in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:People from Houston to Category:People from Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Houston to Category:Mayors of Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Houston to Category:Universities and colleges in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Private schools in Houston to Category:Private schools in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Education in Houston to Category:Education in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Houston to Category:Sports venues in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls in Houston to Category:Shopping malls in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Houston to Category:Museums in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Houston to Category:Skyscrapers in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Churches in Houston to Category:Churches in Houston, Texas

Nominator's rationale: Standardizing Houston‎ sub-categories. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose per comments on earlier like nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I do support the Rename of Category:Mayors of Houston to Category:Mayors of Houston, Texas. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for clarity and disambiguity. - Dravecky (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If article is at Houston, Texas and main category is Category:Houston, Texas, it seems to make sense to have the subcategories follow suit. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per unsigned comment directly above. If the article on the location includes the state and the parent category includes the state, the children should include the state. JPG-GR (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as city is the only place of any size at all with the name. terrible trend, this unnecessary wordiness, that would lead to Category:People from Paris, Ile-de-France, etc. Add the state as an disambiguation only Mayumashu (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per main article name and the Maintain consistency within each country section of WP:PLACES - Neier (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And what exactly is the main article name for the Houston area? As an example, KUVM-CA is included in the categories above and it not in the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference between including only items within the city limits of Houston or throughout the Houston area should not have any bearing on the proper names of the categories in general. If specific categories, like TV or radio stations, need a broader name (such as Category:Television stations serving the greater Houston metropolitan area) then, that is something we can discuss elsewhere. Personally, I think any categorization scheme where Category:Television stations in New York City is a subcat of Category:Television stations in New Jersey needs to be addressed. But, that is just as irrelevant to what naming standard we choose to place on the Houston categories as the fact that KUVM-CA is not actually in Houston. Neier (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd be happy if all "of city" categories implicitly covered the metro areas, and all city categories had a state. If we followed those guidelines, we'd never need a debate like this again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, & consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support The category names should match the main article on the city Bluap (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Houston redirects to Houston, Texas. It should be the other way around. There is nothing wrong with these categories. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Seems a pointless category which serves no purpose. Dixonsej (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to all 34 (gulp!) parent categories. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sabine's Sunbird deleted all of the "Bird of " categories...just cuz there were too many of them on the page. That's the purpose of the category. Cburnett (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced them with Category:Cosmopolitan species, because that is the better category, used for species like House Sparrows and Feral Pigeons that turn up absolutely everywhere. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category with no growth potential. If there's a squabble over what categories should be on the article then it should be resolved on the talk page. Otto4711 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not upmerge? The categories are all still there. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care, but again the category issue appears to be a content dispute for the article and is not really relevant to the category discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every species gets a cat, not even every species of cat, or bird.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without remerging the cats into Cattle Egret article. As I said above cosmopolitan species do not need a million and one birds of cats. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't upmerge per Sabine's Sunbird. Cgingold (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Pointless and unmaintainable category: 94% of places with non-Latin native alphabet have multiple spellings. `'Míkka >t 18:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not useful or defining for the places, esp. given different types of Romanization, and the changes of place names and spelling over time... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only is "Paleoconservative" one of those political terms almost impossible to define/ designate, it is too narrow and there are too few groups to warrent a category--Dudeman5685 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree with Dudeman5685; I think that paleoconservatism within the United States is a well-defined concept distinct from neoconservatism. If there are not many entries in the category, it is quite possibly because entries in the parent category should be diffused. That said, I do recognize that categorization here could easily turn into petty political squabbling—Neoconservative parties in the United States was already deleted. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, "paleocon" may be generally define now, possibly in response to "neocon", but it wasn't used to designate things like, say, the Dixiecrats of 1948, who were more single issue segregationists, the National States Rights Party, the Prohibition Party, the whigs, and there would be alot of semantic squabbling about whether any of these would fit. The only two that would really fit the bill are the Constitution and America First parties and they're about to merge (or were last time I checked). Because only two parties could definitly be named paleocons, because they are revivalist of an "older" conservative tradition in an era of "neoconservativism" are those two, and two parties don't justify a category. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The usefulness of this category seems limited, and, as noted, the definition is a contemporary one which exists in relation to the very recent phenomenon of "neoconservatism" or "movement conservatism". Besides, major political parties in the U.S. are frequently more than one thing at a time - the nature of a two-party system forces the primary parties to be coalitions that cross a fairly broad stretch of the political spectrum. The Republican Party at the moment is dominated by neoconservatives, and it's pretty much jettisoned its liberal wing, but it still has a very strong paleoconservative streak. Such complexity defies simplistic categorization such as exemplified by this category. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:23, 14 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete suffers from the same problems of most "films about" category; how based on actual events must a film be and what reliable sources tell us that it is at least that much based thereupon? Take Forrest Gump or Apocalypse Now or most war movies. The Vietnam War was an actual event, so they qualify even if its just historically placed fiction? If not, why not? Take the movie JFK, the assassination and the prosecutors actions were actual events, but was any of the rest of the conspiracy story "actual events", and who tells us so? The problem is that there is no distinction between the actual events on which these films are based and where the artistic license/fiction begins. We just lump them together - I suppose with anything that has a historical reference point - so any UFO story that mentions a crash at Roswell qualifies - because something crashed at Roswell (a weather balloon, a new weapon, or little green men, you pick), similarly anthing that mentions WWI, WWII, the Moon landing, or any other actual event, qualifies. This grouping then has no coherency or relevance because the categorants have virtually nothing in common. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of a hierarchy of Category:Films by source; not a "films about" category, but a "where did the story come from" category. If the film's plot centers around an historical event such as the JFK assassination or an actual battle or unit in WWII, it belongs in this category; that's what they have in common. Forrest Gump doesn't apply because it's based on a novel; Apocalypse Now is based on short fiction; the UFO aspect of Roswell is hypothetical, thus not history as we know it. Usually, the filmmaker or a reliable author like Maltin will point out somewhere in the credits or in a review that a film is based on an actual situation or event. There is an entire sub-section of the study of film that deals with history's relation to film and vice versa. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "centers around an historical event" is subjective. Does the movie JFK center around the assassination or the hypotethical conspiracy that brought it off? And similarly most war films "center" on the war, whereas the protagonist's heroics is often manufactured. Like Windtalkers and MASH (apparently not included in the cat) and The Great Escape (film) meriting inclusion despite the fact that the characters were all pastiches of real people, and the more dramatic events - including the memorable motorcycle chase were not "historical events" except in Hollywood history. Pure subjectivity...Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I am not speaking of a plot set against a broad landscape of an historical event such as WWII or the moon landing. Where the central plot elements, the main story line, the events which drive the story, are based on an actual event, no matter how fictitious the supporting characters are, that would be "based on an actual event". The plot summary should make this clear. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oliver Stone's film JFK centers mostly on the thoughts and actions of district attorney Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) following the assassination of JFK, leading up to the unsuccessful Trial of Clay Shaw, all of which are actual history. The "conspiracy theories" presented (albeit as fact) are much more Garrison's than Stone's. — CharlotteWebb 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — CharlotteWebb 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a useful category. Fears about its "subjectivity" are unwarranted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:55, 16 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: not renamed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Organizations based in Chicago‎ to Category:Organizations based in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Gangs in Chicago‎ to Category:Gangs in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:People from Chicago‎ to Category:People from Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Actors from Chicago‎ to Category:Actors from Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Writers from Chicago‎ to Category:Writers from Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters from Chicago‎ to Category:Fictional characters from Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Sports in Chicago‎ to Category:Sports in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Tourism in Chicago‎ to Category:Tourism in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Chicago‎ to Category:Transportation in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Airports in Chicago‎ to Category:Airports in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Festivals in Chicago‎ to Category:Festivals in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Chicago‎ to Category:Theatre companies in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Jews and Judaism in Chicago‎ to Category:Jews and Judaism in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Education in Chicago‎ to Category:Education in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Private schools in Chicago‎ to Category:Private schools in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Chicago‎ to Category:Universities and colleges in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Chicago‎ to Category:Geography of Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Chicago‎ to Category:Cemeteries in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Neighborhoods in Chicago‎ to Category:Neighborhoods in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Parks in Chicago‎ to Category:Parks in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Chicago‎ to Category:Streets in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Burials in Chicago‎ to Category:Burials in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Historic Districts in Chicago‎ to Category:Historic Districts in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Government of Chicago‎ to Category:Government of Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Chicago‎ to Category:Mayors of Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Chicago‎ to Category:Healthcare in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:History of Chicago‎ to Category:History of Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Political conventions in Chicago‎ to Category:Political conventions in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in Chicago‎ to Category:Landmarks in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Films set in Chicago‎ to Category:Films set in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Films shot in Chicago‎ to Category:Films shot in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers published in Chicago‎ to Category:Newspapers published in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Radio in Chicago‎ to Category:Radio in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Chicago‎ to Category:Television stations in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Defunct newspapers of Chicago‎ to Category:Defunct newspapers of Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Former private schools in Chicago‎ to Category:Former private schools in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Theatres in Chicago‎ to Category:Theatres in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Former buildings and structures of Chicago‎ to Category:Former buildings and structures of Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Hotels in Chicago‎ to Category:Hotels in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Houses in Chicago‎ to Category:Houses in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Chicago‎ to Category:Museums in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Music venues in Chicago‎ to Category:Music venues in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Nightclubs in Chicago‎ to Category:Nightclubs in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Outdoor sculptures in Chicago‎ to Category:Outdoor sculptures in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Places of worship in Chicago‎ to Category:Places of worship in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Churches in Chicago‎ to Category:Churches in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Synagogues in Chicago‎ to Category:Synagogues in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Railway stations in Chicago‎ to Category:Railway stations in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Chicago‎ to Category:Restaurants in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Shopping centers in Chicago‎ to Category:Shopping centers in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Chicago‎ to Category:Skyscrapers in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Chicago‎ to Category:Sports venues in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Chicago media‎ to Category:Media in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Chicago cuisine‎ to Category:Cuisine of Chicago‎, Illinois

Nominator's rationale: Standardizing Chicago sub-categories. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Using only a single example, WSPY-LP is included in Category:Television stations in Chicago‎ because it is in the Chicago are and it is not located in Chicago. Adding the state to the category name infers that it is located in the actual city, which in this case it is not. I am of the opinion that we should leave these as is to cover the geographic area. If there is a need to contain the articles within the city, then a city only subcategory can be created. This solution would eliminate some of the confusion that exists over the scope of settlement based categories. If the area covered by the category has an accepted name, like there is for the Tampa Bay Area, then that can be used instead. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do support a Rename of Category:Mayors of Chicago‎ to Category:Mayors of Chicago‎, Illinois. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Foo in Chicago implies city vs metro area any less or any more than Foo in Chicago, Illinois. To me, both have the same level of implication, and to me both really are much more City than Metro area. If a category is needed for the Metro area, Foo in Chicago Metro area or such, then so be it. But IMHO the city categories are the city categories, and should have the standard naming structure for such. If articles for the metro area are mis-categorized in the city categories, then that's a problem with the individual articles, not a reason to not clean up the wildly inconsistant namings of the categories. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one, this discussion shows the view that when the category matches the name of the city article it should be limited to the city. Another option here would be rename these to Category:foo in the Foo area unless there is a generally accepted name that exists to define the area. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly appear to have some issues to work out on these. My main goal is to get a consistent naming structure in place. Currently the sub-cats of most of these city cats are wildly inconsistent with their naming. We now have five separate nominations on the two intersecting issues of consistency and city vs metro area scope. Do we want to pick one of the nominations to debate this on? Totally unwieldly to debate in all five places.

For me, as I said above, I see these as already being city-scoped categories. The fact that some people have mis-categorized metro area articles does not change the implied scope of these categories. Adding/removing the state name does nto change the implied scope of these categories. If additional categories are needed for the metro areas, then those should be created. And they should be given names that make it totally clear that they are scoped to the metro areas, not just the cities. Chicago is city scope. Chicago, Illinois is city scope. Chicago metro area (or similar) is metro scope. For LA, Greater Los Angeles works well enough for it's metro area. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given previous discussions that supported using the city named categories to cover the surrounding areas, I don't think that it is fair to say that editors have been wrong in including out of city categories. It is fair to say that we need to review the previous consensus since it appears to have a few issues and several editors are pointing those out. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more general comments on the situation.

I see the state-less categories one way. Vega sees them another. I can say that, to me, they obviously have city-scope, but the fact that Vega sees them differently shows that there is ambiguity here. And ambiguity in category naming is a Bad Thing (tm).

For most of these we currently have only one category. IMHO, if only one category exists, then the city-scoped category is much more key to have in the project than the metro scoped category. For these big cities, it is much, much more likely that there will be city articles and no metro articles than the reverse. (And also a good possibility of there being articles in both groups, in many cases, I know.)

State-less names are ambiguaous, and in some cases (not the ones listed so far) have disambiguation issues. So we are back to them needing to be renamed. One way or another. And I would really like to come up with a consistant scheme for cleaning them up. We have three possible situations with the contents. City-only, metro-only, or both. I still think that the metro-only case will be quite rare, especially for big cities like were are currently looking at. For the "both" situation, IMHO the best solution is to have both categories. City-scoped, and metro-scoped, with the metro one being a parent of the city one, and thus inheriting automatically all members. This is where things like Vega's two culture categories would go. The Culture of Foo, State would remain, and a new parent would be created for the metro culture, with those articles that are specific to the metro, not the city, being moved to the parent.

This could then be a general plan. It would drop back to an initial rename to Foo in City, State, as the Foo in City categories are still ambiguous and inconsistent. Which would make the existing umbrella nominations only step one in the clean up, but a needed first step. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are both in agreement about the two level arrangement. Where we differ is on what to do with the current categories. I would treat them as the area ones based on current contents. They are in most cases, for the large cities, not restricted to the cities. Then if we are having a complete discussion, how do we deal with the broadcast categories. These follow the Arbitron defined area which is likely different then any other definition that we are using. So should that be renamed to say Category:Radio in the Chicago Arbitron market‎?

I'll conceed that media and it's sub-cats look to be a special case. But on the more general case... If we are definitely moving towards a two tiered structure, then I still think that having the Foo in City move to Foo in City, State is the better idea. You are much more likely to end up with a category that needs no second tier built that way. If they are renamed to the metro categories, the chances are much higher that we'll still need a city category, and to then need to move the bulk of the contents to the new city category anyway. Might as well have the bot move them there in the first place. And in general, the number of items in these categories that are city items is going to be much higher than the number of items in them that are metro items. So, again, let's let the bots move them all to the City-scoped name, and then the lesser numbers of metro articles can be much more easily manually sorted out.

So, if we only need one category, as there are no articles scoped for the second, IMHO it is much, much more likely to be the city-scoped category that is needed. Combine that with the issue of bot moves verses manual moves to sort out two tiered situations, and I still think that Foo in City, State is the proper remane place for these in general. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the broad category is the only one that is needed. These categories are already used for the broad areas. See my comments about this on the various discussions. Looking that the actual content proves my point. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another issue that has not been discussed. That is for the by city categories. Does a newly created city only category go in there? This could provide some interesting results for readers. As an example, Category:Casinos in Las Vegas, Nevada would not contain most of the Las Vegas casinos which are not located in the city. One would need to go to a parent category, say Category:Casinos in Las Vegas metropolitan area and then they would see more of the casinos unless they were all broken out by settlement (aka city) into other sub categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Chicago does not need further disambiguation. The category naming scheme should be in line with the article name which, after much debate, was placed by consensus at Chicago. —Jeremy (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for clarity and disambiguity. - Dravecky (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Article is at Chicago; categories should follow formatting of main article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Disambiguation not at all required. Articles Los Angeles, California should be returned to Los Angeles, Houston, Texas to Houston, etc. with cat pages reflecting these one-word namings for famous places Mayumashu (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd be happy if all "of city" categories implicitly covered the metro areas, and all city categories had a state. If we followed those guidelines, we'd never need a debate like this again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are going to go this way, then we need to make sure that the guidelines reflect this consensus. Would it be better to let these renames happen first or would it be better to adjust the guideline first? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems unecessaary for certain cities, like Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency with the rest of the cities in Illinois and the United States, per Wikipedia:PLACES#Maintain consistency within each country. I'd be in favor of moving the article to Chicago, Illinois too, if anyone is asking. Neier (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLACES is for countries and regions, not cities. What you're looking for is WP:NC:CITY#United States, which explicitly allows names like Chicago under very limited circumstances. If you think the Chicago page should be moved to Chicago, Illinois, propose a move via WP:RQM. szyslak (t) 01:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The category names should match the main article on the city Bluap (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I never understood why only some U.S. cities should have the state listed. I think they all should - period. There is an arbitrary cutoff point. Royalbroil 04:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jeremy and Tony. —dima /talk/ 21:29, 21 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Companies based in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Education in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Education in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Cemeteries in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Los Angeles‎ to Category:Geography of Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Neighborhoods in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Neighborhoods in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Government of Los Angeles‎ to Category:Government of Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Water Overseers of Los Angeles‎ to Category:Water Overseers of Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Healthcare in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:History of Los Angeles‎ to Category:History of Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Landmarks in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Organizations in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Organizations in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Gangs in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Gangs in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:People from Los Angeles‎ to Category:People from Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Sports in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Sports in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Transportation in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Theatres in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Theatres in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Synagogues in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Synagogues in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Skyscrapers in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Roller coasters in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Roller coasters in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Restaurants in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Hotels in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Hotels in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Churches in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Churches in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Airports of Los Angeles‎ to Category:Airports of Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Television stations in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles media‎ to Category:Media in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Television shows set in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Television shows set in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Films set in Los Angeles‎ to Category:Films set in Los Angeles, California

Nominator's rationale: Standardizing Los Angeles sub-categories. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Culture categories are consistent, I'll start submitting various US cities for standardization. The Culture discussion showed that there is some possible controversy to particular cities, so I'm not going to try to add a speedy rename criteria for this at this time, but just do one city at a time, allowing for any city-specific debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per above. I was just getting ready to nominate the Los Angeles culture one as apparently restricting it to the city was probably not the best move. Clearly the culture discussion lacked a consensus. Based on the comments at that discussion, then we need to recreate the deleted category to contain the culture articles that are not located in the city proper. This will only serve to confuse. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Government of Los Angeles‎ to Category:Government of Los Angeles, California as an exception to my general vote since this one is clearly limited to the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for clarity and disambiguity. - Dravecky (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom because main article is at Los Angeles, California and main category is Category:Los Angeles, California. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you miss the fact that the categories are not city specific and cover broader uses of Los Angeles? Even the parent category you based your support on says it is for the 'greater metropolitan area'. Clearly not a city specific category as is the article Los Angeles, California. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I didn't, but I don't think it matters. Enforcing such a distinction by the omission of a state name is not intuitive, anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per comments in nomination immediately above. Mayumashu (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd be happy if all "of city" categories implicitly covered the metro areas, and all city categories had a state. If we followed those guidelines, we'd never need a debate like this again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We were there but that consensus seems to have vanished. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency with the rest of the cities in California and the United States, per Wikipedia:PLACES#Maintain consistency within each country. Neier (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The category names should match the main article on the city Bluap (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if the category just covers the city and if there is a new consensus to not use a city name to cover the city and it burbs. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency and disambiguation. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the issues in this discussion, it may be best to close this as no consensus, with the possible exception of the mayor category. LA does not have a clear solution and renaming to be city only will drop a lot of LA related articles into hard to find categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I never understood why only some U.S. cities should have the state listed. I think they all should - period. There is an arbitrary cutoff point. Royalbroil 04:33, 20 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming articles related to the Eurovision Song Contest

Nominator's rationale: The categorisation of articles related to the Eurovision Song Contest is currently a bit chaotic. Several naming patterns are used. I propose to standardise them, hence this group CfR. The categories I'm nominating are the following:

Category:Eurovision contestants‎ to Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants
Category:Eurovision winners‎ to Category:Eurovision Song Contest winners‎
Category:British Eurovision contestants‎ to Category:British Eurovision Song Contest entrants
Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants of Estonia‎ to Category:Estonian Eurovision Song Contest entrants
Category:Moldovan Eurovision contestants‎ to Category:Moldovan Eurovision Song Contest entrants
Category:Montenegrin Eurovision contestants‎ to Category:Montenegrin Eurovision Song Contest entrants
Category:Norwegian Eurovision contestants‎ to Category:Norwegian Eurovision Song Contest entrants
Category:Swedish Eurovision contestants‎ to Category:Swedish Eurovision Song Contest entrants
Category:Turkish Eurovision contestants‎ to Category:Turkish Eurovision Song Contest entrants
Category:Eurovision arenas to Category:Eurovision Song Contest arenas
Category:Eurovision commentators to Category:Eurovision Song Contest commentators
Category:Eurovision composers to Category:Eurovision Song Contest composers
Category:Eurovision winning composers to Category:Eurovision Song Contest-winning composers
Category:Eurovision maps to Category:Eurovision Song Contest maps

This naming pattern unabbreviates the name Eurovision Song Contest, to avoid confusion and to correspond to the related article. I propose using "Eurovision Song Contest entrants" to avoid the ugly "Eurovision Song Contest contestants." A ecis^Brievenbus 15:18, 10 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete, empty. Recreation permissible if articles are found/written to populate it. Kbdank71 13:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There are no articles in this category. Also, there is no agreement in the field that Folk psychology exists as a separate field of study Mattisse (Talk) 14:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Folk psychology" is hardly a controversial concept, there is (despite what nom says) wide agreement in the field about its existence and its usefulness for the explication of naive beliefs. The proper solution to a category with no articles is to populate it, not to delete it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Populate it with what? You could take the stuff out of Category:Emotion and stick it in there. The article is labeled on the talk page as a Philosophy article. Maybe you could ask some philosophers to populate it. Mattisse (Talk) 00:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If it is for "specific native beliefs" as you say, maybe you could ask Anthropology to take it. Mattisse (Talk) 00:23, 17 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete; not listified due to WP:NOT issues. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not a legitimate category, as it does not collect existing Wikipedia articles. I have no opinion on whether the topic is notable; if it is, however, the content should be moved to List of SAP Business One vendors in India. Russ (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an article masquerading as a category, and should be deleted whatever it is. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge articles, remove subcats. Kbdank71 13:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest upmerging Category:Statues to Category:Sculptures

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, Though there is a distinction between the two, in practice the vast majority of articles on statues are in other sub-cats of Category:Sculptures. There are only 10 articles in the main cat here - if the category was used properly there would be many hundred. The sub-cats (Buddha, colossal, Jesus, Mary statues) do not need renaming on upmerge. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was leaning toward merging, but after doing a bit of "due diligence" on the "unsorted" contents of Category:Sculptures I'm not so sure, as there appears to be more than a few articles about statues -- which could be added to that category. Perhaps it would be better to keep it, but move it into Category:Sculptures by type. What thinkest thou, Johnbod? Cgingold (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my point - there are hundreds of articles on statues in the sorted and unsorted sculpture articles, and I don't see much chance of them getting reassigned to statues, or much benefit if they are. Apart from the by-subject statue sub-cats, which are fine, most other works are in the by artist/location/period sculpture sub-cats (often more than one) which have no statue equivalent, and I don't see much point in setting parallel statue categories up. The unsorted statues in sculptures should just be sorted within the sculpture cats. Plus the distinction doesn't always seem clear-cut when you get down to it - how many figures before it stops being a statue? Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate category - would be better as an article, but there are also currently no articles in the category. robwingfield ^«T•C» 08:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As there is no official criteria for what defines a "giant killing", anything in this category will be WP:OR. The article List of FA Cup giantkillings was deleted for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The present inclusion statement is 'For teams who have knocked other teams out of the FA Cup that were way above them in the English football system' (not very satisfactory), and the category is empty. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've now read the excellent afd for the deleted List of FA Cup giant-killings. If one can't make a case for a list then a category is even harder to justify. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the reasons for the article. Lugnuts (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, 100% subjective Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Tuscany is a region, not a province, and the apposite category exists as Category:Frazioni of Tuscany. Ian Spackman (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category violates WP:NPOV, as its purpose is to label various organizations, websites, and people as being racist bigots. It also creates a WP:BLP nightmare, and is just another thing to create edit warring over, as it is being used to label anything that criticizes islam as a form of racism. Yahel Guhan 04:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The purpose of this category has been, for months:

This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims.

Strong keep - the rationale given by the nominator doesn't suffice as a reason to delete. The category was kept (and renamed) after a massive discussion here in November. Per above, Yahel Guhan is incorrect in saying "its purpose is to label various organizations, websites, and people as being racist bigots". The purpose of the category is clearly stated, and Yahel Guhan's accusation is not true.Bless sins (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as no consensus. There was a lot of support for deleting it then. And november was 5 months ago. The time before that, it was deleted. As for the quote, there is a difference between intent, and stated intent, which is obvious by what is being added to the category. Yahel Guhan 04:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All intent here is stated. I'm not talking, you can't hear my voice, you can't read my mind also. You can only see what I write. The same goes for anyone else reading wikipedia. Thus if there is an adverse intent there must be written evidence of it. Clearly the evidence points to the contrary.Bless sins (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments on the previous nomination. Please let me know if something has changed since the previous nomination. --User:Aminz (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the number of times this has been nominated recently is becoming extremely pointish. You won't get something deleted just by nominating it again and again. ITAQALLAH 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the last time; no biography articles should be in here and those should be purged as an apparent end-run on people by opinion categories long deleted, but the fundamental issue is that this is a notable movement. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:OR and WP:SYN. This category throws reference standards out the window and articles are tagged with this cat via the indisriminate whims of POV pushing editors. Prester John (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that Category:Antisemitism, Category:Homophobia, Category:Anti-Catholicism, or Category:Anti-Hinduism should also be deleted "per WP:OR and WP:SYN"? This category, like all the others, is only to be added to articles which are verifiably discussed by reliable sources in the context of Islamophobia or anti-Islam sentiment. ITAQALLAH 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as usual. What there is no place for in WP is the type of deletion nominations as this one must certainly be. WP is a storehouse of knowledge. This is knowledge. No reason to hide it. Hmains (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Anti-Islam in the absence of a reason why Category:Anti-Christianity, Category:Anti-Judaism, Category:Anti-Hinduism, etc. should exist while this one shouldn't. — Zerida ☥ 02:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This discussion appears to have been spawned by Yahel as a pointish response to an edit war here[1][2] between User:Bless sins and User:Yahel Guhan extending from March 9 to March 11, which has now flooded the talk page of that article, also (since the article itself is protected). It appears to me that Yahel Guhan disagreed with categorizing Faith Freedom International as Anti-Islamic (and he is going against consensus), so he now wants to delete the category entirely. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, there are fundamental problems with this nomination as pointed out above, and regardless of whether or not Yahel's disputes on other pages are the reasoning for his nomination, I would still oppose this nomination per Bless sins, Itaqallah, and Carlossuarez46. Renaming it so it is parallel with other anti-[religion] articles, however, doesn't sound like a bad idea. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject matter may be controversial but the content factual. I don't see how the inculsion of Islamophobia violates NPOV. Dimadick (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, or rename to Category:Anti-Islam per Zerida. I argued against Category:Islamophobia because it is such a POV term, not suitable as a Category. But Category:Anti-Islam (sentiment) is a neutral, descriptive term for a category that is unquestionably needed every bit as much as the other, analagous categories that have been referenced. Cgingold (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep or rename to Category:Anti-Islamic sentiment , just as User:Rosywounds has written, this CfD is a part of an edit-war. There are no POV problems, all entries are very relevant. thestick (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been monitoring this and what abuse has occurred has been corrected almost immediately. And this category is clearly not intended to be a category of bigots. It contains the European Fundamental Rights Agency, Runnymede Trust, and Muslim Action Committee. Lastly picking this category to delete while ignoring say Category:Anti-Protestantism or Category:Anti-Buddhism seems flawed.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus; "public transit" may be a synonym for "public transportation" but it is not used in place of "public transport" so far as I know. When it comes to versions of English used in global categories, Wikipedia is determinedly inconsistent. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Future public transportation to Category:Future public transport

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category does not match the title of the supercategory Category:Public transport.. Luwilt (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However Category:Transportation is a parent of Category:Public transport so perhaps we should use either transport or Transportation (whichever was used first) in global categories and the country-specific term in country ones (in the UK it is definitely Transport). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a mixed use of terminology based on local usage. Since the grandparent is Category:Transportation, leaving this one unchanged is not unreasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment both terms are equally 'local usage'. I like the rather ugly Category:Transport(ation) Mayumashu (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment use transit ? 70.55.84.89 (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Future public transportation in the United Kingdom to Category:Future public transport in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. Luwilt (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The term in the UK is 'public transport'. Transportation sounds like Star Trek or indeed transfer to penal colonies (cf Australia, below). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Future public transportation in Australia to Category:Future public transport in Australia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This title is in American English, and it is highly insensitive. In Australia, "transportation" means penal transportation. Luwilt (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as the nom says. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per "public transport" being the norm in Australia. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:28, 12 March 2008 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Songs written by Hank Williams. A separate nomination will be needed to rename the other categories in Category:Songs by songwriter, though such a nomination should take into account the existence of categories, such as Category:Carole King songs, which include "songs written and/or performed by" a musician. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Songs by Hank Williams to Category:Hank Williams songs

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Hank Williams songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One is a "song by performer" category, the other a "song by songwriter" category. Both are huge trees. Please read the headers before nominating for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate. Perhaps rename Category:Songs by Hank Williams to the clearer Category:Songs written by Hank Williams (per a good many in Category:Songs by songwriter, which has nothing by Paul Simon, John Lennon or Bob Dylan ... odd). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a mass nom along those lines. Johnbod (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnbod; I am unfortunately responsible for some of this inconsistency, as I'd inadvertently created some of the articles without the "written" in the category name. -- BRG (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2008 (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.

March 10

Category:WikiCommonSense

Category:Fictional Atheists

Category:Culture of Las Vegas, Nevada

Category:Culture of Los Angeles, California

Houston categories

Category:Cattle Egret

Category:Place names with multiple spellings

Category:Paleoconservative political parties in the United States

Category:Films based on actual events

Chicago categories

Los Angeles categories

Eurovision Song Contest

Category:Folk psychology

Category:SAP Business One Vendors in India

Category:Statues

Category:FA Cup Giant Killers

Category:Frazioni of the Province of Tuscany

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment

Category:Future public transportation

Category:Future public transportation in the United Kingdom

Category:Future public transportation in Australia

Category:Songs by Hank Williams