< September 26	September 28 >

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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine alumni to Category:Johns Hopkins School of Medicine alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, the title of the parent article, which does not have the word "University" included. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Nominator's rationale sounds good. __meco (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category consists of an arbitrary combination because being a Kohen and being an author of rabbinic literature have nothing to do with each other. A precedent for deleting this type of category has already been set at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_11#Category:Rabbinic_Levites and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_11#Category:Rabbinic_Kohanim. See also User_talk:Rachack#Rabbinic_Kohanim. Perhaps we should actually Upmerge this category with Kohanim. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 16:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel a bit lost on this one. Have you notified other pages where people more familiar with this issue may hang out? __meco (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no. Do you have any suggestions? --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 23:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not other than what types of notification templates we have. We have ((Cfd-notify)) and two other templates that can be used to notify individual users, related category and article talk pages as well as WikiProjects. __meco (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. As Rachack says, this is a non-notable intersection. --Eliyak T·C 00:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. Rational for deletion is: "This category consists of an arbitrary combination because being a Kohen and being an author of rabbinic literature have nothing to do with each other". I disagree with deletion as the above mentioned rational contradicts most sources cited on the page The Torah instruction of the Kohanim -wherein the relation of Kohen and/with Rabbinic contribution is a central theme.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge (from a non-Jew) -- The role of the Kohanim ended with the destruction of the Temple (or soon after). Unless Kohanim rabbis enjoy some special status as rabbinic scholars in the post-Temple period of Judaism, the status of a rabbi as a Kohen sounds NN. However, I do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Ahronic priesthood and Rabbinic authority both are rooted in Tanach, which (in reference to the tribe of Levi) states "they will instruct your laws to Jacob and your Torah to Israel" -hence, the two concepts are connected at their base-point--The soft voice of Judaism (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable grouping per genetic research (not a religious argument). Notable as being a group referred to in writings as being involved in restoration of the temple. Notable grouping as regards the class of rabbinic teachings. Collect (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2010 (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 with lowercase "p". There seem to be a lot more lowercase-p portal categories. Capitalization should be standardized at some point, possibly decapitalizing "Portal" in all cases.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Portal:Bhutan to Category:Bhutan Portal
Category:Portal:East Frisia to Category:East Frisia Portal
Category:Portal:Games to Category:Games Portal
Category:Portal:Government of India to Category:Government of India Portal
Category:Portal:Himalaya region to Category:Himalaya Region Portal
Category:Portal:Tibet to Category:Tibet Portal
Category:Portal:Tibetan Buddhism to Category:Tibetan Buddhism Portal
Category:Portal:Xbox to Category:Xbox Portal

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match other portals. I have no opinion about capitalization; the other portal categories are inconsistant about that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Creating a second namespace-looking extension is a bad idea. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not just make all portal categories become Category: Portal - xxx ? This would make confusion with real article categories less likely, since in the real world, there are things called portals, that some cities, streets, or other sites have, and which could have categories. Or how about Category:WikiPortal xxx similar to how WikiProject categories are named? 76.66.200.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I porposed this specific scheme because this would match the other portal categories I foun. If you think that this scheme is wrong, you are free to propose a rename for all the portal categories - either at Wikipedia talk:Portal (recommended), or as a new CfD discussion. The purpose of this discussion (and the 2 below), from my prospective, is to remove the double prefix categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:32, 1 October 2010 (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 this, and also category:WikiProject Albania members to category:WikiProject Albania participants--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania to Category:WikiProject Albania

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category contains only one subcat, and there is no reason for that subcategory not to be in Category:WikiProject Albania. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge for the sake of consistency in the naming of WikiProject categories. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Out of the two articles in the sub-cat, the Project article doesn't need to be there and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania/Members can be listed under Category:WikiProject Albania participants. I would move those two and then speedy delete both empty cats, unless for some reason it is controversial.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:02, 28 September 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia:Fact and Reference Check articles improved to Category:Articles improved by WikiProject Fact and Reference Check

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A name which explains what the category is for. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename as the new name seems more apropriate to me. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:09, 27 September 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete; this is a category for buildings that have been climbed in the course of the television programme Climbing Great Buildings, which contains a list of them. Being climbed for the purposes of a television series is not a defining aspect of any of the buildings. No need to listify as a list already exists. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is too accidental. It's basically a policy-decision of the program makers which buildings are to go into this. __meco (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. This seems a hasty proposal; where and to whom has it been publicised? Surely the point of a category is to provide a ready link between articles with a common property? It may not be an architectural connection, but there are other possible links such as location, date and, IMO, place in the popular consciousness. The selection by a architect with a background in architectural history does suggest there is a common thread - they represent periods and techniques in British architecture. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure about the "hasty proposal" bit: this is as far as I know just the normal way that it is done. Someone sees it, doesn't think it should be there, proposes it here. It's been publicized by being listed here (some people follow these debates!) and on the category's own page. What, to you, would have constituted a non-hasty or properly-publicized procedure? Indeed, I am here only because I found a property, then the category, then the CfD notice. So I honestly do not think that you and your category are getting unusual treatment here - it's just how the system works. It seems harsh when you feel that you can see the point and others aren't getting it, but that is what it does. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment. As you say, differing perspectives. I've publicised on broadcasting and architecture projects, so I won't complain later a narrow audience. Shame that deletions aren't more widely advertised; I've missed a few that I'd have commented on. If the cat is deleted, is there a problem with adding a link to each article? Folks at 137 (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks very much for your response. I'd like to respond more as it's very interesting, and to discuss the points in your penultimate and last questions; but I am pretty clear that this is the wrong place for it as we should be sticking to this category, not the principles around category deletion and publicity, nor the what-ifs - so I'll shush! Maybe we can take it elsewhere, time permitting. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it is an incidental property of a structure. What do Clifton Suspension Bridge and New College, Oxford have in common other than this? (This is like 'James Bond locations' which we deleted recently.) Occuli (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ended up here after seeing it added to Durham Cathedral thinking "surely that should be 'great climbing buildings'!", only to find out it's named after a TV program. That a couple of people spent an afternoon climbing it is hardly a defining characteristic of a 1000 year old building.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for information Can someone experienced in these matters please point me to what policy would support (or otherwise) the removal of this category? Someone above mentioned "defining aspect" - is this part of some guideline? A little pointer would be greatly appreciated; I am not just being lazy, but genuinely at sea. Thanks DBaK (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course; WP:CAT#What categories should be created says that categories "should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features." Bencherlite^Talk 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! That is exactly the sort of thing I needed to read, but was too thick to find without assistance. Gone off to re-read and think. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low notability. The list of the buildings in the article for the show should suffice. MarnetteD | Talk 17:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CAT#What categories should be created. It's a lovely programme but it is not an "essential, defining feature" of the buildings it so interestingly visits. Sorry! The building list in the programme's own article is I feel the right way to access this collection of content. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These buildings are not defined by their inclusion in the series. Alansohn (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from a user perspective the logical place to start lookig for such buildings would be the article Climbing Great Buildings where all the buildings are listed in a table. The category is wholly redundant. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, these buildings derive their fame from much more than a TV show. List suffices. --NortyNort (Holla) 13:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but listify if necessary This is much too like a performance by performer category which we invariably listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: but doesn't the list already present at Climbing Great Buildings fulfil this function? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2010 (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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 11. Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Municipal owned companies of Norway → Category:Municipally owned companies of Norway
Category:Former municipal owned companies of Norway → Category:Formerly municipally owned companies of Norway
Category:Municipal owned companies of the United Kingdom → Category:Municipally owned companies of the United Kingdom
Category:Municipal owned companies of England → Category:Municipally owned companies of England
Category:Municipal owned companies of Scotland → Category:Municipally owned companies of Scotland
Category:Municipal owned companies of Wales → Category:Municipally owned companies of Wales

Nominator's nationale: Rename With reference to discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Category names with hyphens misused after "ly" and the recent renaming of Category:Municipally-owned companies to Category:Municipally owned companies and Category:Municipally-owned companies of Canada to Category:Municipally owned companies in Canada I nominate these categories for renaming. I'm not enough of an expert in English to be sure that what I am proposing is the correct solution, so I'm hoping for corrections if warranted. __meco (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all – to harmonise with Category:Municipally owned companies etc. Occuli (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have modified the proposed name of one of the categories to counter an ambiguity which I just realized. Instead of its new name being Category:Former municipally owned companies of Norway I have proposed Category:Formerly municipally owned companies of Norway (i.e. changed "former" to formerly") to avoid confusion with defunct companies. This category should classify companies that have now been privatized. If they are also defunct that should thus be categorized independently. __meco (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – this is part of a wider problem as there is Category:Former government-owned companies which I agree is ambiguous. I'm not sure about 'Formerly municipally owned' as it appears to be overly adverbed. Ex-municipal? Occuli (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ex-municipal" sounds bad is my immediate reaction. Other possibilities are Category:Formerly municipality-owned companies of Norway or Category:Companies of Norway formerly owned by municipalities. __meco (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about considering an approach that might address both problems? Would Category:Companies owned by municipalities of England and Category:Companies formerly owned by municipalities of England be an acceptable approach? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have a wonderful sound to it, but it is very straightforward. I'm wondering though whether of or in would be the best preposition. __meco (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did consider in v of and was unsure. If the basic approach is accepted, others can decide which is the better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 11. Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I realize that there is some honor to having the number-one song in UK at Christmas, but that is a non-defining characteristic of the song. They just happen to be #1 at this time of year. I think the list at List of Christmas number one singles (UK) is the best way to identify these songs and, as they are already number ones in the UK, this seems to be overcategorization as well. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this is a defining characteristic of these songs since in the minds of the audience this fact will always be closely associated with the tune, and emotions and associations are very significant aspects when it comes to music. I'm more uncertain about the option of listifying though, but for now I'm voting simply to keep. __meco (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – not sure about this - in the UK it used to be whatever happened to be #1 but these days it is Simon Cowell's choice (or anti-SC choice). Either way, it is now a big and highly publicised deal. (Eg is this a defining characteristic of Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)? It probably is, regrettably perhaps.) Occuli (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep though I wish we were delivered from having these churned out as musAc in all the shops just before Christmas. The alternative might be to regard this as an award catefgory, which we should listify and delete. One characteristic is that they are Christmas-related and normally drop out of the chart completely immediately after the festival. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't Christmas-related songs, but pop songs that just happen to be number one over the Christmas holiday in the UK. I think the list for this case is great, but defining to each song? I don't see it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is notable, but not defining. The comments above seem to me to be more appropriate for a discussion of whether such a list would exist, not whether we should categorize based on this feature. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:53, 4 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Uncertain criteria for inclusion and potentially quite broad. Most songs are about variations of love, anger, memories, or money—usually a combination of two or more. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is actually an avenue which I would rather see developed much further, i.e. intersection categories between works of art and topical subjects. Songs/literature about anger, sorrow, sex, suicide, flying, etc. I'd like to see them all. __meco (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I think the category is useful, but the pages aren't well-cathegorized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leefeni,de Karik (talk • contribs) 19:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a given song or book will be about many things. Seek & Destroy (Metallica song) is about killing, revenge, hunting, destruction, and no doubt much else besides. Occuli (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some songs may be about many different things, and they would not belong in such a category. Many songs however hav a clear focus on one such subject (or perhaps a couple). As a general comment I am a little distraught that categories are axed because someone is able to imagine candidates which may vaguely fit, thus denouncing the category as vague and unwieldy when such cases very likely would not be placed in these categories and all that is generally needed is common sound judgment. Perhaps two editors might end up in an edit war over the placement of one particular song into this category somewhere down the line, although probably not. __meco (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seek & Destroy (Metallica song) is currently in the category; I assume that it why it was raised as an example. Its presence in the category is not a hypothetical "imagining". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the song. So you are both saying it tangentially centers on the topic of anger and thus is a strong argument why this category is unworkable? __meco (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Occuli. The way I read his comment, I believed he was using it as an illustration of the potential problems with the category. One example doesn't determine the fate of a category, but it can serve as an example of the problems with it that are likely to arise again and again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was saying (from its article) that it could be placed in Category:Songs about killing, Category:Songs about revenge, Category:Songs about hunting, Category:Songs about destruction as these are mentioned explicitly whereas anger is not. I see that there are quite a few of these in Category:Songs by theme - 'anger' is at the vague end of the themes collected so far. Occuli (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the deletion reasons provided above. Additionally this may tend to be somewhat subjective. Is the title a reason to include? One word? The underling theme? The cover notes? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too few entries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - didn't realize that was a good reason, besides Agicola is probably one of the more important Scientific authors of the 16th Century, Sadads (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author is a defining attribute to the book, and all books should be categorized by their author (if, of course, their author is notable). Compare Category:Novels by Harper Lee for example. Lugnuts (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – part of established scheme and defining as Lugnuts says. Occuli (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important works. The alternative would be to templatise and delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. There is also the possibility of the other works being included as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:43, 5 October 2010 (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.

September 27

Category:Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine alumni

Category:Kohanim authors of Rabbinic literature

Category:Portal:anything

Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania

Category:Wikipedia:Fact and Reference Check articles improved

Category:Climbing Great Buildings

Municipally owned companies

Category:Christmas number-one singles in the United Kingdom

Category:Songs about anger

Category:Books by Georgius Agricola