< February 4	February 6 >

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. There is no consensus for deletion, but there is agreement that the current name isn't working. As for how the category is purposed (as a container category or whathaveyou), that is beyond the scope of this CFD. AKA, discuss at the talk page, be bold, etc. This CFD does not preclude renominating for deletion if either the rename or (repurposing, whatever) doesn't work. Kbdank71 15:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American federal lawyers to Category:Lawyers who have represented the United States government

Nominator's rationale: This category is a misnomer; no one calls an attorney that represents the US government an "American federal lawyer." To the extent the category should exist at all (it's arguably a violation of WP:OCAT), it should be more precise; as it is, it is easily confused with the concept of lawyers that practice in American federal courts. THF (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear Keep and probably rename. This category has a very clear function: it groups together all of the categories for laywers who are employed by the US federal government. I would imagine that the current name can be improved upon, though I'm not sure the suggested name is necessarily the best we can come up with. (It may be, but I'd like to see some other suggestions first... ) Cgingold (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want all such attorneys, or just the ones in the executive branch? "Lawyers who have worked for the United States government"? THF (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A short stint in the gov't gets you in there? One case that you're hired for? Pretty trivial and non-defining... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but have Category:Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States all represented the US? Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have not. Which is another problem with the category: it confuses the executive branch with the judicial branch. THF (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lawyers by client is a bad idea and essentially this is what it this is - and of course, the US has some quirky legal concepts (see ex rel and private attorney general) where a private party's lawyer has technically represented the United States as sovereign. And you have all sort of lawyers who represent the Constitution of the United States as opposed to the government, etc. A real mess. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think of this category as "lawyers by client" so much as lawyers by employer (in this case, the Federal government of the United States. Maybe "Lawyers who have worked for the Federal government" would be better? --Eastlaw (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an odd grouping: the JAGs include defense attorneys who don't represent the US, but actually oppose it in court. The grouping goes too far, perhaps lop off the subcats as appropriate and create Category:United States Department of Justice attorneys (or attorney employees) and limit inclusion to that - leaves of judges, clerks, JAGs, but does dump public defenders and prosecutors together because we're not categorizing by client, but by employer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• rename I removed the inappropriately placed Supreme Court clerks category: it was excluded in the category purpose so removal was warranted. 'Attorneys' is a better name than 'lawyers' here: see the subcats. So a rename could be Category:Attorneys representing the United States government which includes present and past attorneys so employed. Hmains (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds better. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Attorney" is a needless Americanism; "lawyer" is more generally understood internationally, and indeed the parent of the branch is Category:Lawyers.-choster (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - my thought processes run closely in line with Carlos's. This is lawyer by client, with the client happening to be the government. It's also vague. Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton are both lawyers and both have represented the federal government (as POTUS and as Senator and now Sec. of State, respectively) so it invites lack of clarity. It also mish-mashes together lawyers appointed by the POTUS, lawyers who happened to be hired in some federal office or another, whether in their capacity as a lawyer or not. Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The US government is hardly an ordinary, everday client. In fact, it's also the world's largest and most powerful law firm, if you will. Now I just CFD'd a category for associates of a private law firm a couple of days ago -- but this is fundamentally different, precisely because it's the federal government. They're public officials, and that's something we routinely categorize. Your example doesn't exactly help your case, either. Bill & Hilary were not employed as lawyers, any more than Senator Bill Frist was employed as a physician. Also, if we applied this line of reasoning down the line, wouldn't we be obliged to delete all of the sub-cats, as well? Needless to say, that isn't gonna happen -- which means this grouping category is very much needed for navigational purposes. So I honestly think your (and Carlos's) input would be more helpful here if you focused on coming up with an acceptable name and perhaps tightened up the headnote for the inclusion criteria. Cgingold (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not appear to me that we routinely categorize generic professions based on whether practitioners have or have not worked for the US government. Category:Surgeons General of the United States is not, for example, parented by Category:Doctors who have worked for the United States government. Category:Congressional chaplains is not parented in Category:Ministers who have worked for the United States government. And so on. Otto4711 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, but these examples overlook one simple fact: we don't (as far as I know) have other existing categories for either doctors or ministers who have worked in specified positions for the federal government. So, unlike the situation with lawyers, there is no need for an over-arching category like this one. Cgingold (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need for this category either. The subcategories can certainly be parented in Category:American lawyers and in an appropriate subcat of Category:United States government officials. Otto4711 (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And, while I was being somewhat facetious about Bill and Hil, Hilary Clinton has in fact performed as an attorney for the federal government, service as a legal advisor during the Nixon impeachment hearings and as chair of the Legal Services Corporation. Otto4711 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've personally represented the state government of New York—in one pro bono appellate brief. Point being, it's not that hard in the U.S. for a practicing attorney to "represent" a government without having it constitute a significant aspect of that individual's career, or without that individual becoming a "public official." That said, there are ten subcategories for specific lawyer positions within the federal government, such as JAGs, U.S. Attorneys, etc. There might be a good rename that would group those without including individuals that don't fall into such subcategories. Postdlf (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: Reading through the first round of comments, my sense is that (aside from the name) what opponents are most concerned about is having articles placed directly in the category -- whereas my focus has been on retaining this as a grouping category. It seems to me that a possible solution would be to make it a container category, an approach which has been used successfully in a number of other cases. In fact, I created a template for this purpose a few months ago, Template:Container-cat, which spells things out very clearly. If that's deemed an acceptable compromise, all we have to do is settle on a (better) name, since I think we're all agreed that the current name is not suitable. Cgingold (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the Template:parentcat would work just as well and be more universal. If no one disagrees, I could certainly start on this by removing articles that are directly in this catgory when they already exist in one or more of its subcats. Hmains (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • further comment Reading through various article here, putting them all into subcats would result in an excessive number of small categories. The thing these lawyers have in common is they each worked for the executive branch of the US Federal government in a capacity that was worthy mention in their articles. I fail to see what is wrong with this category, as is, other than the name. The purpose of categories is to aid navigation by the reader to articles with a common theme. This category does that. Hmains (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. What a mess. After the rename, re purpose to a container category and remove those sub categories that don't belong like executive branch lawyers. Then review and if this does not work allow a nomination for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Attorneys who are federal employees? If we don't categorise performers by their resume, why are we categorising lawyers that way? This seems rather similar to Performers by performance/performers by venue. (See WP:OC#PERF.) - jc37 10:16, 24 February 2009 (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 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Papers archived at Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - surely not a defining characteristic of the people, especially considering that the center itself doesn't even have its own article. Listify if desired. Otto4711 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly: will vote to delete when it is clear who is doiing the list at the centre's article. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bette Davis, among the others, is not a paper and she's unlikely to be archived here or anywhere else. Not a defining characteristic nor appropriately titled. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Essentially, spam for the center. DGG (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2009 (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, but if deletion of certain redirects are desired, they can be nominated for CFD just like any other category (aka, not speediable). Kbdank71 15:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the main CfD page,

It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and classification.

However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over again. In these cases, we use a form of "soft" redirection.

Despite these policies, there are a lot of category redirects actually in existence, many of which do not seem to "frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally." All these redirect categories have to be patrolled daily by RussBot to see whether they do contain any pages. Using records gathered by RussBot, I have generated a list at User:R'n'B/Unused category redirects of categories that may be eligible for deletion. Technically, all of these are empty categories that could be speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#C1, but I think we should have some discussion before taking such a drastic step.

For background, RussBot found 7,597 category redirects in existence during its daily run this morning. Of those, 6,574 have not had any pages assigned to them since the bot first detected them. Of those, 5,305 have been detected since September 20, 2008 (the earliest date for which I have data) and have had no pages assigned to them in that time. Out of those, I (somewhat arbitrarily) eliminated any category that had at least 100 webserver hits (as measured by http://stats.grok.se/) over the past three calendar months. This may include some false positives, because the hit counter seems to be case-insensitive (for example, Category:Living People reports exactly the same hit counts as Category:Living people), but so be it. This left 4,867 category redirects.

I am proposing to delete all the pages listed on User:R'n'B/Unused category redirects. These redirects are largely unused and most of them don't immediately appear to be especially useful, and getting rid of them would significantly reduce the resources required, on both the server and the client sides, for the daily RussBot maintenance run. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No pages were added to them since September? Not needed. --Kbdank71 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds good in principle, but PLEASE HOLD OFF FOR NOW. There is an issue that needs to be resolved before we proceed with any mass deletion of cat redirects. I've recently come across what I'm afraid is the "tip of an iceberg": a considerable number of cat redirects have been established in order to accomplish what amounts to an end run around the supposedly mandatory CFD process for renaming or merging of cateories. It's entirely possible that the editors may have done this in good faith -- because it's so much easier -- not really grasping that what they were doing was in fact an end run around CFD. The rules about this sort of thing are not very well-delineated and could easily be interpreted as allowing or even encouraging it -- which amounts to a huge loophole, in my estimation. In any event, I would not want to see all of those cat redirects -- which were, after all, the original categories -- disappear before we sort this out. Cgingold (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't worry, I'm not going to do anything abruptly; the whole point of posting here was to see if there is a consensus before proceeding. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, I understood that -- I mainly just wanted to be sure that other editors knew about the problem. I think the issue I've raised probably needs to be sorted out in another forum; meanwhile, there's no harm in people commenting on your proposal. Cgingold (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. What about links to the category redirects? It seems that they would be somewhat useful if there are links to them, but I assume that hasn't been checked? If we could easily change the links to link to the correct category, it wouldn't be an issue, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this should be listed on the centralized discussion to get more input, as this will be lost within a few days at CFD. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What page do you want this moved to? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it would best be suited to being added here. Lugnuts (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done; thanks for the link. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree wider input needed. Three thoughts: "Not used in 5 months" != "will never be used in the future". 5 months is a relatively short period in the life of this encyclopaedia. Secondly, drain on resources: if there is an identifiable group of category redirects that are rarely used, why scan them every day? Why not once a month? Will anything bad happen if a misplaced category remains on an article for a while? Thirdly, these redirects prevent mistaken category creations by people who fail to check for existing categories properly, and have a long-term preventative role in that respect. Bencherlite^Talk 08:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see no problem with simply deleting the category redirects for the most part. RnB's data suggest that category redirects, while harmless, do little else than take up space, and if they haven't been used in so long just get rid of them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least some such as Category:Cities in Hyogo Prefecture, or Category:Cities in Cote d'Ivoire because they redirect to categories with non-standard characters. No strong opinion on the rest of them (without typography issues). Neier (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But wouldn't those cats still not have had any articles in them since at least September? Why then should we keep them? Do people occasionally find categories through the MediaWiki search function?--chaser (away) - talk 18:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure deleting these is such a wise idea. Finding them or relevant articles via MediaWiki search is a crapshoot ("Sumerian Gods" is helpful, but "0 BC Births" has 0s BC as the fourth result, from which an intelligent searcher can go to the appropriate year article, then the birth section). Google searches are more consistent, which is where I suspect these webhits are coming from. If people are using these redirects to find information, then they're navigationally helpful, despite what the policy says. I'm sympathetic about Russbot and client-side resources, but don't worry about server-side performance.--chaser (away) - talk 18:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I came here through ((cent)) pretty sure that I would be in favor of deletion, but after reading some of these arguments, I'm kind of ambivalent. Maybe MediaWiki should be fixed to properly handle category redirection before we do anything further on-wiki with the trickier cases? (E.g. not the clearly wrong category redirects that should be summarily deleted.) --Cyde Weys 20:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Discuss each individually (or at least in small groups, where each discussion has a publicly available list attached to it) - some may have value; merely the fact that none have been used in the past 5 months doesn't mean that tomorrow someone won't attempt to use them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Bias to keep. How do we know that they have been completely unused? Just because RussBot found nothing there doesn't mean that there was never anything there, or that no editors were guided by them. Sometimes an editor creates or categorises an article into one of these; then that editor or another looks at the category, sees that it's a redirect, and updates the article. I've done that myself. So, some prove useful, without RussBot ever detecting the event. I would generally keep them, and reprogram RussBot to patrol them less frequently. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the one-word categories like Category:Age, Category:Alumni, Category:Aluminum, just scanning the top of that list. These are likely search targets. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per WP:PERFORMANCE. No real reason to delete them, and a lot of them are common redirects from various spellings, etc of common category titles. It would be the same as deleting article redirects that don't get used too often. If there's a clear case of individual category redirects not being needed, then list them at CFD. Lugnuts (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, too many redirects listed here to be discussed properly in one discussion, but maybe some can be discussed individually or in smaller groups. Redirects that I think are useful include: the different spellings caused by variations in the English language (aluminum/aluminium, labor/labour), alumni categories (because the names are not obvious), those based on former names (e.g. Category:15th Regiment of Foot officers), and anything where the target category has non-standard characters, probably some other types as I haven't looked at all of the list. —Snigbrook 17:14, 12 February 2009 (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: upmerge to Category:Cannabis in the United States and Category:Hemp. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hemp and American History (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Upmerge into Category:Hemp. This is an overly narrow category whose contents should simply be listed in the parent cat. (Category creator has been banned.) Cgingold (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Cannabis in the United States and Category:Hemp.-choster (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2009 (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. This whole africa/years tree is a mess. Not only are there these two duplicate categories, but as noted there is Category:Years of the 13th century in Africa and Category:13th century in Africa. And don't forget Category:Centuries in Africa. Recommend a relist to merge all of the relevant categories. Shouldn't be an issue with all of the other "by year" "by century" etc renames going on. Kbdank71 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Africa by year to Category:Years in Africa

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate categories. Tim! (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Africa by year to Category:Africa by century or another form. There are many categories for grouping century and millennium categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the subcategories of this are Years of the XXth century in Africa, not XXth century in Africa. A separate layer may be needed with XXth century in Africa but that does not yet exist. Tim! (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support renaming Category:Years of the 13th century in Africa to Category:13th century in Africa and for the similar named categories. But the subcategories here are all by century. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2009 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former students of Magdalen Hall, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Magdalen Hall, Oxford

Propose renaming Category:Former students of Hart Hall, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Hart Hall, Oxford

Nominator's rationale: Rename both to "Alumni" per conventions of Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford (and other UK university categories). Bencherlite^Talk 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as suggested. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed. It would not be appropriate to upmerge to the current name Category:Alumni of Hertford College, Oxford; cf. Category:Alumni of New Hall, Cambridge for a more recently renamed college. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2009 (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: Speedy Merge per convention and spelling. -Xdamr^talk 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Cusine of Kerala to Category:Kerala cuisine

Nominator's rationale: I am assuming that Cusine is a mis-spelling for Cuisine. All other categories in Category:Indian Cuisine by state are of the form "state name cuisine" Malcolma (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This qualifies for SPEEDY MERGING. Cgingold (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2009 (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: relisted on feb 12. Kbdank71 14:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Images with no copyright tag to Category:Files with no copyright tag
• Category:Images with unknown source to Category:Files with unknown source
• Category:Images with unknown copyright status to Category:Files with unknown copyright status
• Category:Images with no fair use rationale to Category:Files with no fair use rationale
• Category:Disputed non-free images to Category:Disputed non-free files
• Category:Replaceable fair use images to Category:Replaceable fair use files
• Category:Orphaned fairuse images to Category:Orphaned fairuse files
• Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Files on Wikimedia Commons
• Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
• And the same with the daily subpages of all the above.

Nominator's rationale: Namespace change from Image: to File:. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note by nominator (made after the discussion already started): I had merely replaced the word "image" with "file" - this should probably be the focus of the discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Od Mishehu: I disagree about what the focus should be. Renaming of categories is a fairly costly process, since it often means a lot of edits to both pages and templates. Thus we should take the chance to apply all improvements at the same time, like update the names according to the latest guidelines and practises. --David Göthberg (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No objections to the basic premise, except we should exchange "fair use" with non-free while we are at it. So make it Category:Files with no non-free use rationale, Category:Unused non-free images and Category:Replaceable non-free files instead. Remember to update Template:CSD/Subcategories + the relevant templates and make sure categories with the new name get created for all the "pending" dated categoreis so nothing is left in redlinked category limbo. --Sherool (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you used the word "unused" instead of "orphaned". I think I agree with that, "unused" is clearer. (Although orphaned works fairly well for me too, but is probably somewhat cryptic for Wikipedia beginners.) I also see you forgot to change "images" to "files" in your example above, but I guess that was just a mistake. If we also prepend "Wikipedia" as I suggest below, then Category:Orphaned fairuse images should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia unused non-free use files, right? I use "non-free use" here instead of just "non-free", since as I understand it that category is for files that supposedly do have a fair use rationale on their file page. (But I just checked, some files in that category lacks a fair use rationale.) This also means I suggest renaming Category:Replaceable fair use images to Category:Wikipedia replaceable non-free use files. --David Göthberg (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah The missing "file" was an oversight, think we are mostly in agreement then. I kinda think "unused non-free use files" is a bit unnessesary though. If a file with a non-free copyright tag is not used for 7 days it's speedy deleted per criteria #5, the presense or absense of a use rationale doesn't rely matter in that case. --Sherool (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I slightly prefer "non-free use" over "non-free", but it doesn't matter that much to me. But one thing I would like to point out is: I think it is very okay to have long category names for administrative categories, and especially this kind that only are shown on file pages. So I prefer to make them clear instead of short. I hope someone else will comment so we get more info on how people interpret those names. --David Göthberg (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, and prepend with "Wikipedia". I agree with changing the word "image" to "file". I don't have a point of view on if we should change "fair use" to "non-free use". (Our article on fair use doesn't have a single occurrence of the word "non-free", and the Google test shows that "fair use" is much more common. But I see that our guidelines use both terms, and I see that "non-free use" might have the benefit of making people think twice about using such content.) Anyway, if we don't change "fair use" then at least see to that "orphaned fairuse" is changed to "orphaned fair use" with a space, so all "fair use" are spelled the same. And while where at it: As I understand the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for Wikipedia-related categories then these file categories are clearly "administrative categories" and thus should nowadays have the word "Wikipedia" in the beginning of the name. Thus for instance Category:Orphaned fairuse images should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia orphaned fair use files or Category:Wikipedia orphaned non-free use files. --David Göthberg (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Files in those categories are pending deletion for non-compliance with the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, using "fair use" to refeer to such content in the context of internal policies have long been depreciated since it confuses the issue. A lot of people know what fair use is (or think they do), and would often argue that their use coply with fair use law when told that images did not comply with the relevant Wikipedia policies. Using a different term helps empasis that even if an image is legaly fair use it doesn't nessesarily comply with the Wikipedia excemption policy for using contnet that is not free licensed. --Sherool (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sherool: Ah, I see your point. Okay, so I think you are right, naming them "non-free use" is probably better than "fair use". --David Göthberg (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2009 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Western to Category:Western (genre)

Nominator's rationale: The current title, which lacks a parenthetical disambiguator, is quite unclear. It could plausibly be understood to refer to Western culture, the Western world, the Western Hemisphere, etc. It is with good reason that Western is a disambiguation page and the main article is located at Western (genre). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By all means, Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match article, current category name is too ambiguous. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - oh gee, I created this category. I don't even remember doing that... - UtherSRG (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2009 (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 both. Since virtually of the arguments presented in this discussion apply equally or more to Category:Second wranglers, I have initiated a discussion about Category:Second wranglers at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 1. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Senior Wranglers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Miscapitalization of Category:Senior wranglers. Tobias Bergemann (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Wrangler is a title, thus a phrase treated as a proper noun. Category:Senior Wranglers is correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had not thought of that, and the capitalization issue did not come up when Category:Senior wranglers and Category:Second wranglers were considered for deletion in January 2008. When I encountered Category:Senior Wranglers and Category:Senior wranglers, there were four articles in Category:Senior Wranglers and 60+ articles in Category:Senior wranglers. I then moved the four articles to Category:Senior wranglers. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (not delete). However, I agree that this is a title and so should have both initials capitalised. For preference, merge Category:Senior wranglers into Category:Senior Wranglers. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Senior Wranglers per above - is the other tagged though? Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments last year; these are basically valedictory (US wording) categories - who graduated first and second in Mathematics in Cambridge in the 19th century is well taken care of in the lists - to categorize on the basis of people graduating first or second in a specific major from a particular school is just not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - whichever has deletion templates, delete them and thems that don't nominate them. This is the equivalent of Category:Valedictorians, which was correctly deleted a year ago. Being first or second in class is not a defining characteristic on either side of the Atlantic. Otto4711 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We went through all this at vast length a year ago, and decided it was. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but merge. "Being first or second in class is not a defining characteristic on either side of the Atlantic." may be true in general, but there is one exception. This one. Being a Wrangler is very defining and is always mentioned about the person in any summary of their life. As Johnbod, says we did go through all this before. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• is always mentioned about the person in any summary of their life... So is procreation, divorce, and other life events, but we don't categorize those either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - same objections as last time. This is a variety of valedictorian, categories for which were deleted. Same reasoning for deleting those categories applies here. Otto4711 (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Strike out second vote. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Senior Wranglers. (Is Otto4711 now getting 2 votes?) Occuli (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It's part of his contract as an official member of the claque. He drives a hard bargain! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you check on my claque membership? I don't want to vote twice, but I was thinking of closing it now that I've voted. --Kbdank71 15:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I checked your status out and you were struck from the roll, because you insisted in the past on spelling it "clack". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Damn stupid clack. I'll bet Otto gets to vote a third time since it's been relisted... --Kbdank71 20:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A rather strong defining characteristic for the individuals who have received this honor. I will wait about 24 hours to vote a second time. Alansohn (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not defining and per Category:Valedictorians and per consensus can change (and this can stay open until we're all dead as far as I care, I'm not going to get questioned again about relisting it because nobody wanted to close it). --Kbdank71 16:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't know about this. I can understand how some editors could view this as defining. However, I don't even think the school(s) a person attended is defining, let alone the person's placement at the top of the class of that school, so I'm going to have to say delete, as was the valedictorians category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisted. If the category is not deleted, either due to a 'keep' or 'no consensus' outcome, then Category:Senior wranglers should be merged into Category:Senior Wranglers to correct capitalization. However, based on the discussion up to this point, I see the argument for deletion as being more convincing, primarily because the 'keep' comments do not clearly explain why this is a unique case. That said, the category containing all of the articles (Category:Senior wranglers) is untagged, and so a 'delete' outcome could easily be contested on procedural grounds at deletion review. So, to avoid a potentially lengthy debate on procedure, and also to provide an opportunity for more discussion, I am relisting this discussion and tagging Category:Senior wranglers.

A few comments, mostly from what was to be my explanation of the close (I hope they'll be of some use):

• Bduke correctly notes that graduating as Senior Wrangler is usually mentioned in the biographies of Senior Wranglers (in approximately 80-90% of cases by my count). However, while that indicates that the information is noteworthy, it does not necessarily mean that it is defining (for example, while the primary school attended by a person is noteworthy, it is not defining for purposes of categorization). Moreover, I suspect that graduating as valedictorian is also likely to be mentioned in most biographies of valedictorians.
• One difference between 'Senior Wrangler' and 'valedictorian' stands out: the latter classification is generic to many institutions, while the former is unique to a single university and a single subject. Whether this is a significant difference, or whether this strengthens the argument to delete or keep, is not entirely clear.
• The key question, in my opinion, is: what significance does graduating as Senior Wrangler have outside of the context of mathematics at the University of Cambridge? In other words, what factors make the status of 'Senior Wrangler' significantly different from that of 'valedictorian'? The main article claims that "[t]he examination was the most important in England at the time, and the results were given great publicity", but the claim is unfortunately unattributed. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. After reading through the discussion, I think the questions raised by Black Falcon may be more to the point. Just because the position has a specific title, does that mean that the category stays? I think not. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - I agree with Vegaswikian (and others above). Personally, the question of whether a title based upon personal achievement is "defining", reminds me of a past discussion of Category:Eagle Scouts. (See also: this CfD and the subsequent DRV) Several editors of whom I respected were involved in that in such a way as my respect for them did somewhat diminish. (For example, the closer of the DRV was also a member of WP:SCOUT. WP:UNINVOLVED seemed somewhat strained a bit in those situations... For comparison, it would be like User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) closing a similar DRV concerning Erdős numbers - which he, to his credit, did not...) So it seems that, essentially, this is overcat, but not if a group of editors who like the term can rally support for retention, despite other such terms (which they apparently could care less about) being deleted on a consistent basis... - jc37 10:59, 24 February 2009 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Four Campaigns of Admiral Yi during the Imjin Year (1592) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Merge to Category:Naval battles of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). Overly narrow category with only two articles which should simply be listed in the parent cat. (Category creator stopped editing in October 2005) Cgingold (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.-choster (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nominated. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2009 (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 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quincy Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Quincy Jones discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(added Category:Quincy Jones discography, now a cat-redirect after the contents were moved to Category:Quincy Jones)-Cgingold

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow category for just one artist. Contains only songs/albums categories, parent, and discography. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not just one artist. This is Quincy Jones! One of the greatest musicians of all time. Please don't delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yagsian Asked (talk • contribs) 12:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both per nom - there's just not enough material to warrant a category. However, as in all cases like this where there are two related sub-categories, those sub-cats should be linked to one another with ((CatRel)). Cgingold (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a CfD policy that artists don't get their own category or is it a matter of how well developed the articles are about the artist.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's fundamentally a question of whether there's sufficient material -- sub-cats & "loose" articles -- to warrant a category, regardless of how prominent any particular artist may be. Cgingold (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2009 (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: They're not? Could you speedy fix one, then the other? If so, why not both at once? I'm confused. rename. Kbdank71 14:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Manowar Member to Category:Manowar members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fixing capitalization and pluralisation. Both errors are individually speediable; together they are not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 5 February 2009 (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 14:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Registered Historic Places in Alberta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The National Register of Historic Places is a United States government registry. Alberta is in Canada. Thus, there are no Registered Historic Places in Alberta. Borderline WP:DAFT, though I suppose I see how the mistake could be made. Kind of. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Alberta being Canada's red state notwithstanding.-choster (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a Canadian Register of Historic Places. •••Life of Riley (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was what the category was meant to categorize (and I'm not convinced that it was), is this the correct terminology? The category page currently links to National Register of Historic Places, and I've never seen places on this Canadian register given the proper name "Registered Historic Place". The Canadian register is essentially a listing of places that have been given another designation by provincial or territorial authorities, and is not a designation given by the Canadian government. The federal designation that is given is National Historic Site or National Historic Park. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category may be misnamed. Also, from my limited research, the category may redundant to Category:Provincial historic sites of Alberta. •••Life of Riley (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would indeed be misnamed. Right now, its only contents are Buildings in Alberta by heritage register and two buildings which are also included in one of the subcategories of Buildings in Alberta by heritage register. Since this is the only by-province category of its kind in Canada, I suggest deleting this and then starting afresh—if we want to have a category for places in Alberta that come under any of the various historic registers (including the existing Category:Provincial historic sites of Alberta and Category:National Historic Sites in Alberta), I suggest we could rename Category:Buildings in Alberta by heritage register to Category:Places in Alberta by historic register, which would essentially mean the category would be equivalent to the Alberta places within the Canadian Register of Historic Places (since not all places are buildings, e.g., Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump). If we take this approach, I will nominate Category:Buildings in Alberta by heritage register and the other similar by-province categories when this discussion closes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am striking out my keep vote above. I am somewhat confused by all the various historic registers in Canada. Good Olfactory seems to be more familiar with this, so I'll bow to his knowledge. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that it is confusing as I've set out above. The system itself that is used is really not that bad—there's just national ones and provincial ones—but the use of this particular name combined with the little-known combination of both into the Canadian Register of Historic Places can throw you for a bit of loop. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 12 February 2009 (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 14:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hospitals in Rural/Regional Victoria to Category:Hospitals in Victoria (Australia)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose making this category more broad, since the proposed-name category doesn't even exist yet. Before we break down hospitals in Victoria into hospitals in rural Victoria, we need to group all the hospitals in Victoria together, and that hasn't been done yet. Category:Hospitals in Melbourne could be made to be a subcategory of it. Even with that addition, the category would not as of yet be so big that we would need to justify a further subdivision into rural areas. Also, the other categories within Hospitals in Australia don't subdivide the states' hospitals in this way. (Also disambiguating Victoria in the usual manner.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems logical to me. Victoria-wide first. --Merbabu (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2009 (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 14:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with uncategorized mental illness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems like a bad idea for a number of reasons. First, it's a kind of "miscellanous", "remainders", or "not otherwise specified" category, which to start with is not a great way to categorize people or things. Second, it is vague, and that vagueness brings with it inclusionary criteria problems. People who are "weird" or who have done "weird things" might be categorized here not because they are defined by a diagnosed illness they have, but just because it's "clear" to some editor that they "must be" or "must have been" mentally ill in some unspecified way. WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:BLP will be implicated in editors making these judgments. Finally, this is not unlike some other deleted categories, and some of the reasons in those discussions are also relevant: Fictional characters with mental illness, people with clinical depression, people with obsessive-compulsive disorder, people with social anxiety disorder, and others. I encourage reading of those discussions rather than my reproducing all the points here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 5 February 2009 (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 until better idea is found. There is consensus that breaking down by country isn't useful, but nobody could come up with a replacement. Rather than delete this now and have to find the articles later to place them in a region category, keep this for now. I personally would lean towards by continent; while region may be more accurate, we may wind up choosing regions that have no meaning for readers. More people would know where, say, Europe is. Recommend contacting a relevant wikiproject or perhaps the village pump for ideas. Kbdank71 14:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biota of the West Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. This is a biogeographically unremarkable subnational area. I'm all for categorising below country level for regions that are floristically or zoogeographically interesting, but this is neither. Hesperian 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Most countries seem to have a biota category, but there is no Category:Biota of the Palestinian territories or Category:Biota of Palestine. So what area is this a subnational area of and what would be the appropriate category to merge it to? Category:Biota of Israel or Category:Biota of Jordan?—I realise this is a touchy topic for political reasons, but I'm wondering if we should just rename it to Category:Biota of the Palestinian territories to avoid the problem entirely. I don't think that scientifically that is a good solution, however. It probably makes the most sense to link Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank as does the article Biodiversity in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, but that would require a merging with and rename of Category:Biota of Israel, presumably—Category:Biota of Israel and the Palestinian territories? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure what the name should be, but I think you're probably on the right track, since it is one contiguous region, regardless of political boundaries. Cgingold (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment fall out by trying to classify plants and animals by national boundaries - odd thing that plants and animals really don't respect those boundaries. I would doubt that there's much in the West Bank that isn't also in Israel or Jordan or somewhere else. We should seriously consider whether this schema makes sense or whether we should focus more on bio-regions (e.g., Amazon Rainforest rather than figuring out if we're talking about Peru, Venezuela, or Brazil and whether the critter in question has crossed the border). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I share your concerns on this issue, Carlos -- it comes up regularly. Last week my jaw dropped when I saw the roster of categories on the article Sugar Glider, which is endemic to Australia. It's listed in 6 out of the 7 state sub-cats of Category:Mammals of Australia. If that's not OCAT, I don't know what is. But, needless to say, changing over to a more ecologically rational system will/would be no small task. Cgingold (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the above comments. Dividing according to national boundaries seems completely arbitrary as far as this topic goes. In some cases, it may make sense when the country is isolated (New Zealand, or Madagascar), but to differentiate between the West Bank and the rest of the surrounding areas seems ludicrous. This reminds me of the recent mollusc categorization debate, where these issues were raised. Those who sounded like experts in the field seemed to agree that division of mulluscs by country was dumb. It would be nice if there were some worldwide system of division that scientists used for this that we could adopt. Is anyone an expert? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So what should we do. I am not an expert on what various biospheres may be, but some wikipedians must be. And, some, critters either are spread wide among various places (pigeons and rats come to mind) and others migrate across them (whales and monarch butterflies come to mind), so there will still be several categories on some critters, but at least they'll be more rational. It's unfortunate that this comes up for the West Bank which no doubt carries political implications rather than Liechtenstein (sorry folks there), which I cannot imagine having anything that isn't already in Austria or Switzerland and no real dispute as to its "country-hood" or sovereignty. Any ideas? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Agree wholeheartedly with the above, that classifying biota by political boundaries is rather pointless. (If only we could keep those pesky birds from crossing the border!) In some cases it makes some sense, especially with island countries. For example, biota of Iceland, biota of Japan, etc. are probably valid categories. On the other hand, it makes little sense to separate biota of Brunei from biota of Borneo. It will be a huge job to change all the categories for thousands of plants and animals, however. •••Life of Riley (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We have discussions of this kind every few weeks. The range of indigenous species is limited by suitable habitats, not political boundaries. Accordingly categorisation needs to be by general regions, not polities. CAn any one suggest a name that covers the whole of the eastern mediterranean litoral and its hinterland? Levant? In this way, Gaza, Israel. Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria categories can all be merged into one. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree that this system needs some rethinking. A small start in this area can be found in Category:Tropics, which contains tropical fish and flora. Here is a somewhat daunting list of ecoregions, sorted by ecozone and biome. This list contains subpages with some species information, which could be used as a starting basis for categories. I think an alternative category structure would need to be in place before the by-country categories can be put to rest. --Eliyak T·C 11:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current category apparently falls under the Eastern Mediterranean conifer-sclerophyllous-broadleaf forests ecoregion. --Eliyak T·C 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (COI warning) - although politically interesting, I don't think it's biologically interesting. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:43, 11 February 2009 (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:Invasions by the United States. Kbdank71 13:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Countries invaded by the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Despite its title, this category is being used to house articles about invasions, rather than articles about countries which the United States invaded. So, at minimum, it needs to be renamed (Category:Invasions by the United States is one option). However, I think upmerging to Category:Invasions and Category:Military history of the United States is a better option than setting a precedent for a new Invasions by invading country category tree. Subcategories of such a category tree would overlap significantly with subcategories of Category:Wars by country, and such extensive duplication is more likely to hinder navigation than help it. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Invasions by the United States as suggested. The current name had me concerned, but the proposed shift makes excellent sense and will fit well in Category:Invasions (which I've already added as a parent cat). I see no reason to shy away from a set of categories along these lines. Cgingold (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed and what does "invaded" mean? Does Sherman's march through Georgia (CSA) count? What about when someone "invites" the US in? Does D-Day count - France more or less invited the US in? Most of the US actions in war occurred outside of the borders of the US and hence the US was arguably "invading" everything (Canada in 1812; Mexico in 1840s; Philippines in 1898; Puerto Rico in 1898; France in 1917; Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria in 1942/43; Italy in 1943; France again in 1944 - followed by the Benelux; Germany and Austria in 1944/45; lots of islands in Oceania in 1943-45 culminating in Japan; etc. etc. pure POV what to include as an invasion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that you're making an argument for deletion of the entire Category:Invasions, Carlos -- but that's a well-defined concept, not "pure POV". Perhaps you're conflating "invasion" with "war of aggression" -- but those are two quite distinct things. And it's really not all that difficult to identify which country carried out an invasion. I suppose you won't take my word on this, so I'm going to solicit input on this issue from other people at WP Military History. Cgingold (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the pure selectivity in what the proponents of the category include - Operation Overlord (Allied invasion of France) is in; Operation Plunder (Allied invasion of German) is not. Bombing of Warsaw in World War II (in the subcat of September Polish Campaign) is in; Bombing of Dublin in World War II not - is the bombing of one country's capital by another an "invasion" - I guess it depends on whom you ask. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) What the heck? In order all the way down:
• D-Day is just plain wrong ("invited"?!?). Nice invitation - 10,000 dead on the Allied side...
• War of 1812: WP says "During the course of the war, both the Americans and British launched invasions of each other's territory across this frontier, most of which were unsuccessful or gained only temporary success."
• Mexican-American War: WP says "After the declaration of war, U.S. forces invaded Mexican territory on two main fronts."
• Philippine–American War: the only one here that could be debated - between invasion, occupation or rightful occupation.
• Puerto Rican Campaign: definitely an invasion.
• Going to France in WWI was definitely not an invasion; the U.S. was supporting an ally in a war. How in heck would that be an invasion? Entering an allied country to help is nowhere near the definition of invasion...
• All the WWII examples are obviously invasions. What else would they be?
• Anyway, what's the problem with POV? Invasion, IMO, is pretty clearly defined. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Replying to Carlossuarez: Certainly nobody is going to support mis-categorized articles in this or any other category. So articles about aerial bombing campaigns, for example, should never be categorized as invasions under any circumstance. Likewise, many categories have articles that are "missing"; the solution, of course, is to find them and put them in. Neither of these issues is grounds for deletion. Cgingold (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• D-Day, the allies were invited in by France, the de jure sovereign of Normandy - that it was occupied by the Germans doesn't deny the invitation; or is the US "invasion" of Kuwait during the first Gulf War also belong despite the Kuwaitis asking for "liberation"? It's all POV - as evident between the inability of two keep advocates disagreeing about whether the aerial bombing campaigns being "invasions" which I tend to agree with Cgingold on, so I'll remove that category from the mix. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• They invaded and occupied country. I don't see what is so POV about that.
• "as evident between the inability of two keep advocates disagreeing about whether the aerial bombing campaigns being "invasions""? What do you mean...? You are confusing me. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Invasion isn't a POV term it's simply a an offensive in which an army aggresivly enters someoen else's territory.--Patton^t/c 12:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Invasions involving the United States. The current category does not actually contain a list of countries invaded by the US, but even it did, it would unnecessarily add a large number of countries to a list that doesn't really add a lot of information (eg If Country X was invaded twice, it would only be in the list once). The "involving" part would also indicate that allies were heavily involved in some invasions (eg Operation Overlord)Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be fine with this alternate name except for one thing: I'm concerned that it would unintentionally blur the distinction between the invading country and the invaded countries, which could also be said to have been "involved in" the invasion. This potential problem may not be readily apparent with this particular category, since the US has only been on the receiving end of an invasion on one occasion, during the War of 1812 (unless you count that other "British invasion", circa 1963). But I'm looking ahead toward categories for other countries that have been on both ends of invasions, and I want to be sure that those categories won't be used improperly. Cgingold (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Two invasions if you count Mexico just prior to the First World War... :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hah hah - I figured somebody would bring up Sr. Villa -- but a cross-border paramilitary raid doesn't count as an invasion in my book. The real invasion, of course, was the year-long US response, led by Gen. Pershing. Btw, do you have an opinion on renaming? Cgingold (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• =) And yes I do - I forgot to add it in the midst of writing my incredulous list-reply above. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Raneme per Lawrence.--Patton^t/c 12:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom to Category:Invasions by the United States. The purpose of categories is to aid the reader to navigate to articles. This category and those for other countries do just that. The presence or absence of categories is not for the CfD to second guess the WP editors who write the articles or to push a POV agenda against the facts provided in the articles. Hmains (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Invasions by the United States - per Cgingold (talk · contribs) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Invasions by the United States. A useful category, needs a good name. —Kevin Myers 15:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggesting Listify -- could be more informative than a category. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify then delete -- This existnce of this category implies there should be similar categories for every invader. This will severely clutter up their articles. Fortunately, the USA has not been involved in a great number of wars, but many European countries would be categorised in most other ones, unless the category is carefully limited in time (e.g. since WWII). Peterkingiron (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2009 (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:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category I listings. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Category I Historic Places to Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category I Historic Places

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Currently there's no indication of which Historic Place preservation scheme - or even which country - this category is for. At a minimum ity needs to specify New Zealand, but the name of the organisation is probably more suitable. Discussion may also be needed on whether the last two words should be capitalised, but that may need expert advice. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category I or Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust in Category I? That double 'Historic Places' seems to get to me. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category I listings ffs! Same below Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. The imporrtant thing is that it specifies the country. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can support that. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2009 (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:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category I listings (see above discussion). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Category II Historic Places to Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category II Historic Places

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As above, so below. Same reasoning as on the above category. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category II listings per the above discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2009 (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.