Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 22 July 24 >

July 23

[edit]

Category:United States 7th Cavalry Regiment people

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Kirill Lokshin 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I trialled this category to take some of the strain off the "Custer" category (see below). There were people there who definitely should be grouped together in some way, and a "Custer" category just wasn't it. My views on this are not that strong, but if deleted, it certainly should at least be listified. As for "bad precedent", can we think about this clearly? "If we do this for every unit" - and we certainly plausibly could, and I do not believe that it would be unencyclopedic, since sorting soldiers by their units makes a degree of sense - then does it really make sense to have a huge number of lists? Read WP:CLS and have a think about it... I don't think that it's clearcut. "Every military person will have dozens of categories" is obviously nonsensical. Checking through the members of this category will reveal that hardly any of them belonged to more than one (and very rarely more than three) military units. The real truth is that "Some military people will belong to a fairly large number of categories" - a situation which is not unique. It's happened with a handful of Irish MPs with exceptionally long political careers who have been sorted by a large number of parliamentary categories - for examples, see Tom McEllistrim, Snr, Oliver J. Flanagan and Charlie McCreevy. The reason we accept this is that for most Irish MPs, a far fewer and more manageable number of categories are required. To return to the proposition "Some military people will belong to a fairly large number of categories", we really need some data on what proportion of people fall within that "some" and what type of number is "fairly large". My experience of military people articles suggests that the situation will be no worse (indeed substantially better) than for Irish MPs. The sample of articles in this nominated category suggests it will be very much better than for Irish MPs. The choice between category and list systems is subtle, and basically revolves around which is better equipped technically to take on this task. Currently, the available evidence seems to point towards "category" (flexible structure, easy to maintain, deals well with "nesting"). My views are not strong and I am happy to be persuaded otherwise, but while I am prepared to accept expert testimony at face value (I am not demanding a stack of statistics), "every military person will have dozens of categories" is clearly untrue. I appreciate that's because you are exaggerating, but this is a technical debate, which therefore requires data rather than hyperbole. Would somebody be able to illuminate the situation so we can have a more informed debate? TheGrappler 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't have any firm statistics on this, but common sense suggests three things:
  1. Higher-echelon officers will have disproportionately served in larger numbers of units. I would be very surprised, for example, if any general in the modern US Army could be tied to less than a dozen over the course of his career.
  2. Personnel who served during major wars (e.g. WWII) will have many more units than personnel who served primarily during peacetime, as bloody fighting tends to entail lots of unit reorganizations to deal with casualties.
  3. Units tend to have long histories, so the grouping won't necessarily be all that meaningful. What plausible connection does Hector Santiago-Colon have to Custer, for example, other than the fact that his unit patch had the same number on it?
I would suggest that if you're actually looking for a Custer-related category, something like Category:Military personnel at the Battle of Little Bighorn might be better. I would still think this would work better as a list, though (e.g. List of United States Army personnel at the Battle of Little Bighorn). Kirill Lokshin 01:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I was specifically trying to avoid making Custer-relatedness the link. Category:Military personnel at the Battle of Little Bighorn is clearly a bad idea because if that got extended to every battle, then yes, most military people would end up in a silly number of categories. The list isn't such a bad idea - certainly there are a lot of articles on Little Big Horn people that need tying together somehow. Again, it doesn't bear scaling up for widespread use, though. I still think there is some merit to using the unit as a grouping. It's true to an extent that Hector Santiago-Colon is not related to Custer so obviously as to soldiers serving at the same time as Santiago-Colon. However, there is also the issue of regimental history, which does connect the two (even if a little obliquely). Categories are there for finding information - I think your point is that it would be a bad way of trying to find Santiago-Colon. But it is a good way of finding information about the 7th Cavalry, and Santiago-Colon, like Custer, is part of the history of the unit. A list of notable soldiers from the regiment is plausible and I think there's a strong case that it's encyclopedic. The question is simply whether an article is the best way to do it or a category. I can see that categories will work better for some people than others - better for those lower down the ranks in particular. Out of interest, I browed through Category:United States Army soldiers and classifying by unit looked like it would have worked fine. I guess it will be different with those higher up. It's a characteristic of our articles on the 7th Cavalry that they're not mainly about high-ranking officers, mainly because of the interest in Little Big Horn, so for the individuals in the category, such a scheme would appear to work well. I strongly suspect that the general trend will be in this direction - the generals have been added first, later people will add the more notable footsoldiers - so in a couple of years time maybe categorizing will look more reasonable. TheGrappler 02:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not exaggerating, and I thought about it clearly, and a massive amount of categories for career soldiers is not nonsensical. This is in reference to U.S. military personnel, who are not bound to a regiment, as in some militaries, and therefore don't only have 2 or 3 units in their career. The 19th century army was a different system than it is today, so for people assigned to a regiment in the 1800's, yes, they might have only had a small number of units. Most U.S. military people with articles here are flag rank, meaning 20+ years of military service, and usually closer to 30-35. How will you classify people as part of a unit - PCS moves, TDY, attached, regimental affiliation (I have known people with regimental affiliation to units they have never actually been assigned to - simple as filling out a 4187, or at least used to be)? Look at some of the Air Force generals where their assignments are listed chronologically (I say air force because many of those bios have come from the official air force biographies which list every assignment). Some have had 20-25 different assignments, all to different units/agencies. I've done PCS moves, and in one tour at a post been in 3 different units.--Nobunaga24 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you obviously were exaggerating at least a little, with the "every" ;-) As you say, for the 19th century soldiers, it works pretty well. If it doesn't work for modern times, though, then continuity is lost so it gets a little pointless. I'll self-speedy this category if needs be. Presumably this means that a list would be a little pointless as well. As a potential rescope, I guess the advantage of Category:United States 7th Cavalry Regiment casualties would be that people can only die for one military unit... but I'm not sure there's much worth to it.TheGrappler 02:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a change to Category:U.S. Army soldiers at Little Big Horn, or even Category:Little Big Horn, which I believe is the main goal of this category. The problem becomes that the modern U.S. Army Regimental System bears little resemblence to the old system. Regiments now are Parent regiments. I understand what your goal was, but I think a list under the unit article of the most prominent members would work better. --Nobunaga24 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Adulterers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination moved from AfD Road Wizard 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this category should be deleted. "Adulterer" is a derogatory label, and if the category is upheld, it could be used to label vast numbers of biographies in a rather unpleasant manner. There is already bad feeling directed towards Wikipedia about some of its biographies, and, in my opinion, this category has the potential to make the situation much worse. Details of extra marital affairs are documented in the biographies where appropriate. Wikipedia seems to have a policy of avoiding derogatory biographical categories. This policy should be continued. Viewfinder 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the originator of the cat, I feel this is an historically and culturally important and interesting category. Anyone wondering why it doesn't have any members in it at the moment, the nominator reverted all my +cat edits, but they included people from all walks of life, past, present and fictional, in an unbiased and fully sourced way. I am not aware of the bad feeling issues the nom refers to, and I think adulterer is fine (after all we have Category:Serial Killers), but if people feel strongly that adulterer is an inappropriate label someone who has participated in marital infidelity, don't hesitate to suggest alternatives, e.g. people who have confessed adultery or people who have been prosecuted for adultery. Just resist censorship, and keep this important category with ramifications throughout societies and literature worldwide. Zargulon 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible compromise If this category is upheld, perhaps "extra-marital affairs" would be better; it would come across as less harsh and judgemental. Viewfinder 23:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adultery is by far the most popular legal term, and is the only word for this which applies across cultures and periods of history. Go back in time and the euphemism "extra marital affairs" just sounds awkward if not ridiculous, and it also tends to suggest a middle class context. Adultery is the most candid and economical word for this behaviour. Zargulon 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are often rumors and/or limited evidence that someone committed adultery, and people who don't like the person will try to add the category to the article. Also, people who like the person will try to keep the category off the article, even when it is relatively certain that the person committed adultery. It doesn't matter if the arguments for placing or removing the category don't make sense, just that it will become a fight in many articles. Adulterers is a much more difficult category than murders because there is usually less evidence and adultery is not a crime in most of the western world, and where it is a crime, it often is not enforced, so the category cannot be limited to people convicted of adultery. Well, I suppose it could, but it would be a very small category. If convictions are not used, then most of the decisions about whether to place a person in the category will be original research. Editors will have to choose whose story to believe, whether the story be from the alleged lovers, biographers or historians. -- Kjkolb 01:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kjkolb. Adulterers are not like murderers. Also an article about a murderer is probably there because that is why s/he is notable enough for an article. That is likely to not be the case for an adulterer. That fact, if it indeed it is a fact and not a smeer, might be quite irrelevent to the article anyway. --Bduke 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are many adulterers, but only occasionally is it relevant enough to be worth noting in this way - and who is to say which cases those are? Cloachland 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read the rules for inclusion on the Category:Adulterers page, it answers all of your points. What Kjkolb misses is that most modern famous people suitable for inclusion on this page will have admitted adultery. It is strictly against the rules of the category to put someone in it when there is any controversy.. it is not for smearing people. As for Cloachland's point, if it is worth noting in the body of the article, why isn't it worth noting as a category? 06:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Response Even assuming it is only used where adultery is undisputed and verifiable, this negative and partial sounding category will contribute nothing, unnecessarily upset those categorised and their friends, and provoke edit warring. Stating the facts impartially in the biographies is sufficient. Viewfinder 10:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response The characterization of "adulterer" as gratuitously pejorative is completely unsubstantiated, including in the adultery article on Wikipedia. It is a completely neutral and descriptive term. The category is too valuable to be deleted on the basis of vague speculation about edit warring.. should we get rid of Democratic Party or Zionism as well? This category is essential.. it links disparate characters across history and culture on the basis of an act which, right or wrong, has had ethical significance to most religions, cultures, societies and civilizations, which would not be achieved by simply stating the facts in the biographies. Zargulon 10:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is too POV and hard to verify to be useful (few editors actually read cat pages), and lends itself to malicious abuse. Create a List of notable adulterers if there isn't one. Almost everyone who isn't notable, e.g. worthy of a one-line summary, doesn't deserve anything but a note in their article (if the affair became public and was otherwise notable). Statistically many many many people could fall into this category. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can think of no encyclopedic reason why this category is necessary. Most people having biographies here will have them for some other reason (i.e. they're a policitican, actor, author, etc.). Whether or not they were having an extra-marital affair will usually be irrelevant to those reasons for notability. Inclusion in such a category in most cases can only serve to titilate or to deride a person. It also raises the issue of what constitutes an extra-marital affair or adultery. Do we need to abide by the strict legal definition (which can vary by jurisdiction), or does it open up the question of what's sex and what's not? The few cases where adultery is relevant, it can be more than amply covered in the article without the need for a category. Agent 86 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support a category for convicted adulterers. Otherwise, I think that we don't haev enough evidence to meet WP:LIVING, which asks for a heightened standard of verification when making potentially libellous statemetns about living people. --M@rēino 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as requested. Ramseystreet 21:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not that this isn't notable information. It's that we don't need to categorize every piece of information about a person. --Cswrye 04:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Point of interest: "extra marital" is not the same as "extra-marital".) --Fang Aili talk 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Extra marital relations means the married couple is having more sex. Extra-marital relations means someone is cheating. --Fang Aili talk 16:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is only true in conjunction with the word "relations". If that was what you meant perhaps you ought to have written it. Viewfinder and I were talking about the expression in conjunction with the word "affairs", as you can clearly see for yourself. Zargulon 16:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get upset. The addition of the hyphen does change the meaning, whether you attach it to "affairs" or "relations" or whatever else. But this grammar point really does not matter to the deletion discussion at hand, so I won't say any more about it. --Fang Aili talk 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't change the meaning in the case of "affairs"; in that case it is a point of typography (which I freely admit I know nothing about), not a point of of grammar. In the case of "relations" it is a point of semantics, not a point of grammar. Far from being upset, I am delighted to have had the opportunity to teach someone something. Feel free to carry this technical discussion over to my talk page, or to put across your opinion (as your esteemed colleagues have done) as to why this cat should be deleted. Zargulon 19:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly subjective and non-encyclopedic. I'm already concerned about Wikipedia occasionally getting into too many details about living people, and labeling someone as a adulterer crosses the line. Too many details increases potential liability to Wikipedia. --Royalbroil 01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. If rigorously populated, it would be a huge category; otherwise it'd be highly selective. In any case, it's more titillating than encyclopedic. --BrownHairedGirl 13:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further untittilated comment I don't find it tittilating either, but the best reason I can see for having this category is that some people do find it tittilating. And that, to my mind, is not an encyclopedic reason. --BrownHairedGirl 15:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess you didn't think much of my reason, then, if that's the best reason you can see. But if you don't find it tittilating, do you really have any evidence that others do? I find the proposition quite unlikely. Zargulon 20:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraneous comment (or is that extra-neous?) Why should tittilation make something unencyclopedic? 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:King George's Field to Category:King George's Fields

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. To match King George's Fields. Athenaeum 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I suppose it is a moot debatable point. This has been created by Athenaeum's removal of all the catageories of King George's Field from all of the places so far catalogued which have a King George's field. I believe that is incorrect. I feel that each place with a field shoudl also be in the category. Lists and catagories are not synonymous, and I am about to request that Athenaeum undoes those edits in the relevant talk page. Frankly either name for the category will do in the current state. However, had Athenauem not diligently removed about 50 categorisations earlier then this discussion would not have arisen. So, formally, I object to the renaming. Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I advise against using the word moot in WP discussions because it means significantly different things in British ("debatable", as here) and American ("irrelevant, academic"). —Blotwell 03:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Advice taken. Fiddle Faddle 07:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At present Athenaeum and I are failing to reach agreement, though we have started discussing. I suggest we defer any decision on renaming until that is reached, since that in itself is relevant to the naming of this category. Fiddle Faddle 18:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no prospect that I will agree with you, and the category should be renamed in any case. It is a very simple matter of applying the general principles used to name tens of thousands of categories. Athenaeum 21:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Golfcam 23:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category names for places and other tangible things take the plural form. Cloachland 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and refactor entire approach. There should be one list of King George's Fields, not 25 short ones divided geographically. That makes the category irrelevant (or "moot" in American, heh). One list would be much more user-friendly. Why on earth was it split so? --Dhartung | Talk 07:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The by-county lists can be added to the county categories. This information is more interesting at a local level than a national level. Carina22 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm. But if a playing field is not notable enough for its own article, how is a list of one field notable? Some of them have just one. Seems like a dodge. I just don't see the point, and the precedent is upsetting, like a category for all streets named after Martin Luther King, Jr. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carina22 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, please: This is worth delaying for a while. Athenaeum has removed the category from a very large number, over 50, of articles. Without these articles the category is ridiculous. With them, and there should in the end be approximatley 471 of them alongside the lists, the category makes sense the way it was worded originally. Since Athenaeum is so far showing intransigence and a refusal to discuss matters I have started a mediation process in the hope of reaching a consensus. I think it is worth shelving this request until after that process has taken place and consensus has been reached with mediators. Fiddle Faddle 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename There was no reason to take it out of speedy. Dhartung's idea of merging the articles and deleting the category would also be acceptable, but populating the category with 471 articles would not be acceptable. Categories are for the defining characteristics of things, and possession of a King George's Field doesn't meet that criterion. Osomec 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also be happy to see this category deleted as per Dhartung to put an end to Fiddle Faddle's nonsensical efforts for good. Unbelievably he thinks is a worthwhile use of his time, my time and a third party's time to take this ridiculous matter to mediation. Athenaeum 19:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge articles and Delete or at least rename. Landolitan 16:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Miss Porter's School

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually more a nomination for the deletion of Category:Miss Porter's School alumni, but if that category is deleted, it would leave Category:Miss Porter's School, with but a single article Miss Porter's School which thus should logically be deleted if the alumnae category is deleted. This is an edge case, as this institution can be seen as similar to the British public schools, which do have categories for their Old students. However, where does the line get drawn? I don't think we want a category for the alumni of every single secondary school in the United States. Using a criteria of limiting it in the United States to boarding schools, would disqualify exemplary public schools from having alumni categories, which if we're going to have categories for students of American secondary schools, clearly should have them.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Users with huge penises

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, lol. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TMI, guys. TMI. - EurekaLott 19:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Important Seabird Colony Sites

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Seabird colonies --Kbdank71 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename, or something. I wondered from the capital letters whether this was some kind of official designation but it isn't. The articles in the category are a peculiar bunch, from large islands to little research stations to articles about fauna in a location. There doesn't seem to be any definition of "importance" given. We do classify protected areas quite well but this is obviously meant to go somewhat beyond that. But I'm not sure quite to what - without official designations this is all looking rather subjective and hazy. At any rate, the capital letters have got to go! TheGrappler 19:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians with an IQ

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, that's everybody (except for the anthropomorphic penguins). - EurekaLott 19:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unfunny joke category. 62.31.55.223 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --musicpvm 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As of the last few days there has been an immense deletionist attack on all things IQ related. Several IQ societies, and now this. There is no reason whatsover why this category should be deleted. It can not be done on a whim. It's an information from the real world, like so many others and just as relevant as any other, and an encyclopaedic project can not afford to pick informations to any groups likening, but rather strive to be impartial and include all informations. People with problems over particular kinds of informations should never influence their flow, volume and quality. Never. StevanMD 03:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as navel-gazing. Nareek 03:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no purpose of this category. Everyone has an IQ. If the creator of this category wants something like it to exist, he or she should create categories such as "Wikipedians with an IQ of 86 to 100", "Wikipedians with an IQ of 101 to 115", "Wikipedians with an IQ of 116 to 130", and so on. --Cswrye 04:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename the category I agree the category name is clumsely worded. But it is no reason to delete the category, but rather to improve its name. I suggest simply "Wikipedians' IQ" or "Wikipedians with an IQ of..." or "Wikipedians with a known IQ of...". StevanMD 05:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - A category named "Wikipedians' IQ" wouldn't make sense since it would be the names of Wikipedians in the category, not their IQ. I would support categories named "Wikipedians with an IQ of X to Y", but since that would involve multiple categories, I still think that the best way to handle that would be to delete this category and create the other categories separately. That would prevent people from being miscategorized into the wrong IQ range. --Cswrye 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment OK, but with the addition of the exact IQ, such that Each category says in the info part: This Wikipedian has an IQ of... I will create those categories immediately if necessary. I still think it will come to the same and that it's easier to just rename the current category, than have people figuring out how to substitute categories and which ones with, though. StevanMD 10:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dangerous. - Darwinek 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili talk 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Subways

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of Category:Rapid transit. SPUI (T - C) 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Newark City Subway stations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Newark City Subway is now part of the Newark Light Rail; all stations but one that currently have articles are only on the NLR. --SPUI (T - C) 19:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Per SPUI's nomination, the preferred title by New Jersey Transit is Newark Light Rail. Alansohn 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Michelin Starred Restaurants

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Flight simulation computer games

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:George Armstrong Custer

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Category:George Armstrong Custer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete, this is a rag-bag of articles associated in some way with Custer. However, Custer isn't really a major characteristic of almost any of these articles - a lot don't even mention him. Anybody who fought at Little Big Horn seems to have been included, for instance. Categories by name work quite well for, e.g., authors or musicians, to whom one can attribute specific things. It just seems a bit weird to put, for instance, "Sitting Bull", or "Battle of Antietam" (!) into a Custer category. There are several things named after Custer, that make a little more sense, but basically I don't think this is what categories are for: it is really what the links throughout an article are for. One could, for almost any article, collect together what that article links to with other articles that link to it, and put all of them in a loose-fitting category, but there's no real hierarchy or structure at play here. Since several of Custer's family members are here, an alternative would be to cut out everything apart from them, and rename that category to Category:Custer family or suchlike. TheGrappler 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either rename and reclassify or delete, per nom. -Sean Curtin 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think he makes the grade to have his own category. He's a famous personality, but he wasn't really very influential. Choalbaton 20:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Influential probably isn't all there is to this - if he had found the time between the Civil War and Little Big Horn to produce a CD that was a minor but sufficiently large hit in Belgium to pass WP:MUSIC, he'd get a category for that work of authorship (although he'd probably be more notable for time travel, of course). It's more the fact that nothing can really be ascribed or attributed to him in the same way as for a major politician or a minor musician.TheGrappler 01:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most eponymous categories are not needed or useful. In this case it is misleading. (We need to educate users about the "What links here" tool. Categories are not meant to be a substitute for "What links here".) -- Samuel Wantman 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:POW camps in Great Britain

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional crossovers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Crossover fiction --Kbdank71 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

People by city categories

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-categories of Category:People by city are currently named "People by Fooian city". I believe this to be inconsistent with the rest of the Wikipedia naming conventions for city by country categories. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Man-made objects, contents of Category:Cities by country are to be named "cities in X", such as Category:Cities in Japan, not "Japanese cities". Furthermore, other Category:Categories by city sub-cats use the "city in x" wording as well, for example Category:Images of cities in the United States. City by country categories are worded "in country", not by nationality, and so I am proposing the following for renaming:

--Kurieeto 17:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems an excellent enhancement, as it builds on the "People from X" format already in use; hope there isn't anything that has been overlooked. Have amended my vote above accordingly. Thanks, Usgnus!  Regards, David Kernow 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Mexican Roman Catholics

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of Mexicans are Roman Catholics. This category is useless. -- Lancini87 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Even though the statement is probably correct, it probably should be kept, along with non-redundant categories. Unless we choose to delete all A which are B categories, that is. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As creator. Category was created to try and break out more of the over 500 names in Category:Roman Catholics. Many other countries have fooian Roman Catholics as a sub cat. So this category would appear to fit the existing structure and help organize the larger parent category. Vegaswikian 17:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Vegaswikian Athenaeum 18:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because there is no agreed upon way to determine what religion, if any, a person should be categorized in. For example, if a person was brought up in a Christian household, but does not attend church, except for weddings, should he be counted as a Christian? What if the person was brought up in a predominantly Muslim country like Saudi Arabia, but does not worship, or more importantly, it is not known whether he worships as an adult? Should the person be counted as a Muslim by default because of the country he was born in or the fact that his family made him worship as a child? Even if a person attends church frequently, he may not have converted to Christianity yet (from non-belief). Also, a person may attend church even when he don't believe, out of habit, family obligation or appearances (probably most important when a single religion dominates a region or country). All of this was originally gender neutral, but it became confusing to use so many "he or she"s and "him or her"s. -- Kjkolb 01:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course someone should only be in the cat if WP:V and WP:RS are followed (ideally their religion is included only if notable), but realistically this will see wide use. It's better to split it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians who want a kebab to Category:Wikipedians who like Peep Show

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it sounds like it should be under Category:Wikipedians by diet. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians from John Carroll University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: John Carroll University

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match the other members of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: United States. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Malaysian Heroes

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment On behalf of the users who have voted to merge these categories I reject the original nominators withdrawal of the proposal and stand in his or her place as re-nominator. Athenaeum 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Athenaeum, I don't know the finer points of procedure here, but in the absence of any info to the contrary, I accept your right to renominate, and in any case I am sure that you did so in good faith. However, I have some concerns about the consequences of this.
        As a result of the discussion in this CFM, consideration of a wider set of fixes to the classification of MPs is now underway at Category talk:British MPs, and I am very hopeful that may produce a consensus; there is already much more agreement than I had thought possible, and I have been delighted to see User:Mais oui! joining in those discussions very constructively.
        I appreciate the legitimate concerns of those who regard these sub-sub-categories as clutter, but I can also see the their merits from a local electoral politics angle. I would urge participants to consider the great merits of maintaining a drive to consensus. Classification of MPs is a horribly complex business, and if we are ever going to get it sorted into a coherent framework, we are going to need to make a few compromises and keep people working together: there are several very different approaches at work here, all of which have some legitimacy. I fear that reopening the nomination may make that consenus harder to achieve. --BrownHairedGirl 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn with some hesitation. Since making this nomination, there have been a lot of thoughtful comments from all sides of the discussion. However, I have also been subjected to a barrage of insults from User:Mais oui!, and I do not have the emotional energy to engage with such a spectacular level of anger: "bare-faced cheek", "deceitful", "disgraceful" and "dastardly" are some of the adjectives, and while I have been called a lot worse in my time, I don't want to engage with this level of vitriol. WP:AGF ought to be more widely read :(
    I made this nomination because User:Mais oui! called the idea of dual classification "plain daft", and instantly removed any dual classification, while refusing to discuss the applicability of WP:SUBCAT.
    As discussion of this CFM got more heated, it became clear to me that this debate was going to shed more heat than light on the complex issue of how to reconcile several different needs within the classification system ... so I offered to withdraw the CFM if User:Mais oui! would accept dual classification.
    I am delighted to see that this offer has been accepted, at least in part: the acceptance seems to be only of subdivision by home nation, and I am not the only one to have made the case for the classification to include direct inclusion in some category not bound by geography or nation. However, it would be inappropriate to pursue that point here. I hope that everyone who has been kind enough to participate in this CFM will now join in a wider (and hopefuly less heated!) discussion in Category:British MPs, with a view to reaching a long-overdue consensus on at least some commonality of approach to classifying MPs of the United Kingdom parliament.
    For those who want a category to reflect parliament rather than elections, four categories are better than a few dozen, so I hereby withdraw this nomination. I think we will all have further discussion to do on this issue, but this particular exchange is best drawn to a close. --BrownHairedGirl 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE NOTE: In the interests of equity, the following 6 corresponding categories in the other constituent countries have also been tagged for up-merging. --Mais oui! 08:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted those extra nominations, because they are separate issue, and should be dealt with separately. The categories which I nominated are logically grouped together, because they are all sub-categories of one sub-category of [:Category:British MPs]; however the extra categories which Mais oui! inserted above fall into three different groups: a) first-level sub-cats of British MPs, which are logically similar to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies; b) sub-categories of the above (e.g. the Dublin MPs); c) the Reading and Cumbria MPs, which are being used as an adjunct to higher-level categories, rather than as a replacement (which is how the Scottish regional categories are being used).
For the record, my initial reaction is that I think I would support retaining those in group (a), upmerging those in group (b), and merging those in group (c) into a "politics of xxxx area" category". However, because of the diversity of those categories, it is confusing to have them lumped in with this nomination, which is why I have struck them out.
If you wish to nominate them, please do so as separate nominations for the three groups. --BrownHairedGirl 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restored: these should all be considered in one discussion. --Mais oui! 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please desist from trying to disrupt this CFM by including a disparate group of sub-categories and sub-catehories, which raise different issues. If you wish to nominate them, please do so separaetely, for the resaons I set out above. --BrownHairedGirl 16:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please desist from vandalising the nomination of these other, exactly equivalent categories for consideration. Your presentation above is totally falacious.--Mais oui! 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strikeout of extra categories restored: maintaining the integrity of a CFM is not vandalism. You are indeed correct that my first reason above was wrong, owing to a misreading, and I apologise for that. However, the other reasons still stand, and I would add a further resaon: the elctoral and political changes in Ireland from 1918-22 raise a very complicated set of issues which have generated lengthy and compicated discussions wrt to Irish constituencies, and it seems likely that similar difficulties may arise wrt MPs (e.g. what to do with abstentionist MPs). As I have repeatedly said, I would of course have no objection to the extra categories being nominated separately; my objection is simply that their inclusion in this CFM clouds the choices here. --BrownHairedGirl 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strikeouts removed. Your behaviour has been reported to ANI. --Mais oui! 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strikeouts restored. Thank you for the ANI report: I think it was neceassry, as per discussion on my talk page, I had been considering it myself, albeit for resaons with which I fear you would not agree. --BrownHairedGirl 17:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge These categories are not useful and are potentially misleading as it is very common for MPs to sit for constituencies with which they had little prior connection, and especially in the past MPs often sat for a series of constituencies in widely scattered locations across the UK. Lists of results by constituency are more appropriate, and many exist. Hawkestone 13:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above users. Choalbaton 14:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge excessive number of small categories. JRawle (Talk) 15:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge if you don't like Mais oui!'s subdivisions, and I have no opinion either for or against the particular model chosen, find a consensus on subdividing Category:British MPs in an internally consistent fashion. At present the entire category and its subdivisions are a minor disaster and the proposed merge would in no sense improve matters. Canadian and United States MPs/Reps do not have this problem because they have been efficiently subcat'd. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the whole situation is a minor disaster. That is why I had made proposals for subcatting, which didn't achieve consensus (rightly, I think: my proposals were flawed). However, this merge would be a step in the right direction IMRHO, by creating a useable subcategory: the regional sub-sub-categories are just too small to be of any use in tracking down an MP. Wikipedia isn't working well if someone divides a categ in a way which is acknowledged to have created a minor disaster, but attempts to undo that disaster are opposed :( --BrownHairedGirl 18:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support the merge as you suggest, but I'm not an eventualist. Aren't mediocre (or even bad) subcats better than none ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, no, they are not better. Some degree of subdivision may help shorten a list of that is a desired objective, but subdividing Scottish MPs in this way makes the categoriastion sysem nearly unuseable as a way of finding an MP unless you first know the constituency. --BrownHairedGirl 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge as long as all articles stay double categorized. After further reviewing the parent category (Category:British MPs), I think this subdivision could be helpful but it is also necessary to maintain the complete list at Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies. However, further work needs done starting with renaming Category:British MPs to Category UK MPs.Merge - for now. I'm haven't seen his rationale so I'm assuming User:Mais Oui!'s good faith in trying to improve an already bad situation (as we all should), and I'm not necessarily against this sort of sub-categorizing. However, this whole thing needs to be fixed from the top down, not from the bottom up. Start by renaming Parent Cat to something like "UK MP's", then subdivide by constituent countries (Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland). After that work is done, then we can take a look at whether further sub-division is necessary.--WilliamThweatt 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I could agree with keeping these categories if dual categorisation was agreed, but User:Mais oui! vehemently insists on removing any dual classification. If Mais oui was able to say "oui" to dual classification, I'd happily withdraw this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. We need to ask why would people want to use these categories. If they vaguely remember an MP's name but nothing much else, they can look at British MPs or its four subcats and find the article without too much trouble; but having dozens of local subcats makes that process a lot more difficult. The other reason I can see is to group together those articles about politicians in a certain locale; so have a 'Politics of Fife' category or whatever, that brings together all political topics in that locale, without causing havoc in the MPs parent categories or ghettoising MPs by one particular and not hugely relevant factor. Is the geographical location of their constituency the most pertinent fact in the careers of John Reid or Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling - UK-wide (or mostly England) ministers? Mtiedemann 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all It is nothing more than trivia that an obscure 19th century Liberal and an obscure 20th century Conservative sat for a seat in the same vicinity (though most likely the boundaries would have been revised in between times). Politicians should be categorised by office and by party, and that is all. Cloachland 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Populate. I feel very uncomfortable with this nomination for several reasons:

1. Why has the proposer nominated every single Scottish regional cat, but failed to nominate corresponding cats in the other consistituent countries, namely:

Please note that the first three above are also all my creations, while the last three pre-existed my labours. Why is it a good idea for these regions/cities - Belfast, Cumbria, Dublin, Galway and Reading - to have a dedicated cat for their representatives, and yet it is a grave, nay truly appalling, error for these regions/cities to have the same facility: Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Fife, Glasgow, Highland, Paisley and Stirling? (Orkney and Shetland - which incidentally I caught User:BrownHairedGirl emptying, which is totally against CFD rules - is a special, probably unique, case where a single-constituency cat is truly unavoidable. I will explain if necessary, but I think that that is a side-issue at present.)

Quick answer to Mais oui: I don't think it sensible to have any MPs categorised solely by a sub-national region, and would support their upmerging unless dual classification was retained (as it is with Reading and Cumbria). However, the resaon I nominated only the Scottish sib-categories was simply that they all had the same parent category and seemed to belong together in one nomination. --BrownHairedGirl 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a long, long time building and populating those Irish city cats, and their parent Irish cats. I now see that I have been a fool: I should have invested that time and energy populating the cats for Scottish cities and regions, so that I would not have to face the rich irony of an Irish editor (User:BrownHairedGirl) having the bare-faced cheek to use the following argument in support of deletion of the Scottish cats: "Two of these categories include only two articles each, while others have 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 29 articles", while at the same time, by default, supporting the retention of the Irish categories (which I built), presumably because they are of utility to her! (Cats being underpopulated is always an utterly appalling argument here at CFD, cos the only sane response to such arguments is "well, populate it then you silly so-and-so")

Quick answer to Mais oui: even when populated, those categrories will still amount to too small a sub-sub-division of UK MPs. They will be useless for tracking down a UK MP n unknown constituency unless dual classification is retained.
I think it's a pity to use phrases like "bare-faced cheek" when we are trying to find a solution (see WP:AGF). I fail to see the relevance of my nationality in this context (for the record, I am Irish-born of Scots parents, living in England, and a strong supoorter of an independent Scotland). The fact that I did not at this time nominate the sub-sub-categories of another sub-category was a simply a matter of what I thought would be a logical consistency, and the same principle should apply to all sub-cats of British MPs. --BrownHairedGirl 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of equity and fairness, I am now, with a very heavy heart, going to also tag those six cats for merging into their respective parents (I request the Closing Admin to extend this discussion by 18 hours or so, to fully allow interested editos in those articles and cats the time to find this debate.

Quick answer to Mais oui: As above, I think it would be helpful to nominate those categories, but please do so separately. --BrownHairedGirl 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1., 2., 3., 4., .... Crikey, I have so much more that I would like to say on this topic, but I must leave it at that just now, cos life is just too short, but in closing, please have a look at the local category hierarchy which these cats belong to, eg:

so if we are destroying these cats, all the articles must be upmerged into those two local cats too. If this proposal goes through, it will, in short, create a big mess in the Scottish regional category system. --Mais oui! 08:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of this could be resolved by dual classification, and I would be delighted if you would reconsider your objection to it. However, if you remain determined to oppose dual classification, then we are left with a choice between splitting MPs into dozens of mutually exclusive sub-categories (which seems to be the logical outcome of your sub-cats), or upmerging the sub-subcats as per this proposal, to retain some possibility of using the categoriastion system to locate an article on an MP of unknown constituency. --BrownHairedGirl 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this administrative issue really is the biggest problem, it is easily sorted. Rename these categories as Category:Dundee politicians and so on, keep them in the Dundee parent categories but stop them cluttering and confusing the MP categories. You'll also be able to group them with any losing candidates and councillors that somehow survive AfD, etc. If not, I support the upmerge as to those 'People associated' and 'Politics' categories, and also for the other categories Mais oui! nominated. Mtiedemann 09:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is even worse: in addition to Category:Dundee politicians, Winston Churchill could have about 25 such wide and wishy-washy categories. At least the UK MP cats are well-defined and finite. (And I bet you that Winston would regularly be removed from such an ill-defined cat, not least because he could not stand the place.)--Mais oui! 10:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mtiedemann's suggestion to have "Politics of Wherever" categories is an excellent idea. It solves the problem of small categories as other politicians might be eligible; it means not undoing people's work in creating them; and it makes the fact that MPs should be included in the main MP category unambiguous.
Churchill was MP for five constituencies (two in the Manchester area). I don't see what would be wrong with adding him to those. Most MPs do not move to different area, even if their constituency name changed. JRawle (Talk) 10:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Churchill is in 28 categories already, which is about 23 too many for the category list at the bottom to count as user friendly. There was once a guideline that articles should be in no more than 4 or 5 categories. Carina22 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For comparison, have a look at:

--Mais oui! 10:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of Seanad Éireann by session is a good comparison: it divides the Seanad according to a parliamentary logic rather than by a regional logic. However, a better system is that for Category:Teachtaí Dála (which I also devised), where TDs are categorised by session (e.g. Members of the 29th Dáil), with an additional dual-classification for retired TDs in in the catch-all category for Former Teachtaí Dála. I can see plenty of good arguments for a regional sub-division, but only as an addition to a division according to parliamentray logic, rather than as a replacement ir it.
The Australian categorisation system also uses dual-classification, but by a different logic: a catch-all category for all members, with a parallel regional system. However, unlike the Scottish model which is the subject of this CFM, it does not use the regional sub-divisions as the only means of classifying MPs. --BrownHairedGirl 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- per nom. Astrotrain 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The county categories should be maintained, for Ireland at least. These categories prove very useful for the Wikipedia contributors actually working on expanding the information on Wikipedia on 19th century Irish politics. Someone above mentioned that politicians should only be categorised by office and party. Well, during the early to mid-part of the 19th century, politicians did not always run on a clear party ticket. A number of contributors have been slowly building up information on Irish 19th politics, and have created articles for the myriad of Irish constituencies. In some cases, succession boxes have been created for individual constituencies. The sub-categories for Irish MPs help in that process, as they gather politicians from specific areas, and I would argue that these sub-cats should be maintained until the work of completing succession boxes and complete lists of pre-1922 Irish MPs has been completed. --Damac 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Damac above. Gustavus 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. These categories are not comparable to those for Canadian provinces etc as these areas are far smaller, and more articles would belong in more than one category. In a centralised party system like that of the UK it is of little political consequence where an MPs seat is located. Carina22 16:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is potentially of very great historical consequence. As an example, take Thomas Power O'Connor's seat for the Scotland Ward of Liverpool as an Irish Nationalist from 1885 to 1929. It says a lot about the political and demographic make up of that ward. Gustavus 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of which absolutely nothing is revealed by the category. It needs to be explained in the article. In any case, the odd example like that doesn't counterbalance hundreds of cases where such categories are pure category clutter. Choalbaton 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, unless dual categorisation (also my preferred solution) is adopted. To badly paraphrase Einstein, categories should be subdivided as much as is useful, but not more so. User:Mtiedemann summarises best for me; to expect a casual (in particular, non-UK) reader to know the constituency is already one thing - to then have to know in advance exactly which town this constituency is in decreases the global usefulness of the system. An indepth knowledge of British geography, although an admirable possession, should not be a prerequisite for using these categories.
If an alternative primary subdivision of the supercategory is required, party affiliation would be the most natural, having far greater impact than constituency seat. Either way, a clarification is required - as to whether the clarification is obtained via double categorisation or up-merging, I am largely indifferent. Aquilina 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the sound political principle that "if you are in a hole, stop digging":

  • I give in "... if we agreed on dual classification, I would withdaw the CFM immediately". Right, I hereby agree that every single article that is in, for example, the Edinburgh MPs cat, should be dual listed in the main Scottish MPs cat (same for Cumbria, Reading, Belfast, Aberdeen etc). Cross my heart and hope to die (and I probably will... of shame at giving in to your dastardly scheme.) signed --Mais oui! 18:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way categories should work. Really dividing MPs by home nation is itself superfluous as it has little to do with their opinions or duties in most cases and creates category clutter. Choalbaton 20:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - If I'm right in taking Mais oui!'s last comment seriously (that's hard to decide, sometimes!), it seems he is amenable to the compromise of maintaining dual classification. I call on BrownHairedGirl to withdraw this nomination and let the sub-cats stand, according to her word above.--WilliamThweatt 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am being serious. Oh, and Choalbaton, if categorising MPs by constituent country is good enough for The United Kingdom Parliament, then it is good enough for me. --Mais oui! 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mais oui, isn't that comment a bit misleading? The list of MPs by local authority is only one of several lists of MPs on the Parliament website: the others include a catch-all list, a list by gender, by party, by constituency. --BrownHairedGirl 02:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: These categories are worthwhile for including in cross-categories like Reading, Berkshire to find local MPs easily. Jonathan Bowen 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, this is another example of Mais oui! (talk · contribs)'s bizarre Scottish nationalism. — Dunc|☺ 09:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom's original comments and various others. This category scheme is largely irrelevant to a true understanding of British politics. And this is nothing against Scotland; any such categories for England, Ireland and Wales should be deleted as well. Athenaeum 19:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all These categories are based on irrelevant geographical entities. A British MP represents his constitency and nowhere else. Furthermore there have been at least 2 major redrawings of the first level administrative subdivisions of Scotland, so the current ones are irrelevant to the politics of most of the relevant period. This UK situation contrasts with much of the rest of the world. American Congressmen are part of a state delegation, Australian Senators are represented in blocks by state, many countries with proportional representation necessarily use a regional system and so on. Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Scotland (Westminster) appears to contain complete lists of MPs by constituency back to 1708, so these categories are not only a misrepresentation of the nature of the British Parliament, but they are also made redundant by an alternative and superior presention of the relevant names. Piccadilly 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. Something needs done here - but only targetting Scottish cats while leaving Irish and Welsh ones seems a bit underhand. This issue should not have been taken to CfD - it should have been taken to a talk page where some sort of consensus should have been attempted. Subcats are needed, I'm pretty sure that cannot be argued with. In the case of Scottish constituencies (and I assume the rest of the UK) the parliament themself subcat these by council areas (see [1]) but this would lead to too many small cats. Some other solution is required, but I'm loath to suggest something based on old regional areas (i.e. in Scotland: S'cylde, Lothians, Fife, Central, Tayside, Gramps, H'land) given it's an artificial split. A basic split of the category would be current vs historical. In anycase this CfD should be closed for now and all parties involved should try to reach consensus outwith this process. Thanks/wangi 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until and unless an alternative division of Category:British MPs is accepted; were all articles to be merged back to it, it would be so large as to be of little use. Warofdreams talk 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, double categorisation is very far from uncontroversial.
This whole discussion is a farce. No-one has addressed the key issues: why is it such a bad idea to categorise MPs by the areas where they were elected (after all, the whole parliament is based upon local constituency representatives); and why should we delete all the city/regional categories for Scotland, but not those for England or Ireland? This CFD is unique in my experience in trying to delete a set of subcategories for one constituent country of the UK, but not in the others. Such a disturbing approach deserves, in fact demands, a full explanation. No such explanation has been forthcoming. In fact at least two people have even voted for a merge with zero explanation whatsoever - and those votes must surely be discounted. I would strongly contend that this entire discussion in highly irregular and out of process. --Mais oui! 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mais oui, have you actually read the discussion?
First, the question of why it is a bad idea. My nomination made it clear that I objected because it divided the category into too small a group; others have objected on the grounds that the region of an MP's constituency is of only trivial interest in categorising them. (You may not agree with either reason, but they are legitimate reasons for people to vote for upmerging).
As to why only Scottish cats have been nominated: as I repeatedly explained, the problem which to my mind made the Scottish sub-categories unique was that they were being used to replace the by-county category; the rejection of dual classification was what prompted this CFM. The dual problem has now been resolved, which was why I withdrew this nomiation (I see only onbe outstanding objection to it).
I do undersatnd that you put a lot of work into creating these categories, but rather than criticising the nomination as "out of process", why not read the votes and comments? --BrownHairedGirl 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am unable to determine what is being nominated. I think the case that we are asking for a merging of the Aberdeen, Dundee, ..., Stirling cats into the overall Scottish category, but I am not sure. Advise. --New Progressive 17:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes New Progressive, that's correct. --BrownHairedGirl 20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"There are several good reasons for duplication. The basic principle is that the duplication makes it easier, and not harder, for users to find articles."
"When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well. This includes articles placed in ethnic subcategories within national menus..."
--Cactus.man ✍ 16:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Casinos in England

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had only one entry and was the only entry in the parent Category:Casinos in the United Kingdom. I moved the only entry to the parent and this cat is now empty. Vegaswikian 06:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. David Kernow 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong oppose All UK localities should be divided between the Constituent countries of the UK. Hawkestone 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hawkestone. Choalbaton 14:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nomination. Whatever the merits of sub-categorisation by constituent country, it's superflous when the UK category is underpopulated. --BrownHairedGirl 15:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Hawkestone. The fallacy behind BHG's argument is that this risks messing up the structure of the category tree. A casino in England really must be subcategorized under "Buildings and strucutures in England", for instance, and this is best done through the "Casinos in England" subcategory. The structure of the UK makes it more important to subcategorize by constituent country, in the same way that buildings and structures are subcategorized as much as possible by state in the United States. As a rough analogy, if there was only one casino article about a casino in Germany, we wouldn't leave it up in "Casinos in Europe" even if those in Germany formed a tiny subcategory of an underpopulated category. Germany has a rich and well-integrated categorization structure into which that casino belongs - as do individual U.S. States, and constitutent countries of the United Kingdom. TheGrappler 17:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheGrappler Athenaeum 18:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Elections in Turks and Caicos to Category:Elections in the Turks and Caicos Islands

[edit]

and

Category:Hurricanes in Turks and Caicos Islands to Category:Hurricanes in the Turks and Caicos Islands

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend using the full name for consistency with other Turks and Caicos categories. TheGrappler 05:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Hockey alumni to Hockey players

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More controversial, I expect, than the one below, as we've had a merge argument in the past about this. Of the dozen-plus hockey leagues and hundreds of other minor sports leagues on Wikipedia, only these three use "alumni" rather than (and in addition to) "players". I personally would like to see all of them merge to their counterpart categories, regardless of the currency of a player's tenure. There are many subcategories that I would list, but I'd like to see if these global requests pass first.--Mike Selinker 04:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note that the CHL is not the only league on Wikipedia to use "alumni". A comparable baseball league, the Category:New York - Penn League, does as well. BoojiBoy 14:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Hockey trophies and seasons

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring these in line with other non-abbreviated trophy and seasons categories. All other leagues' categories have the name spelled out.--Mike Selinker 04:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Star Fox Playing Wikipedians to Category:Star Fox playing Wikipedians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Wikipedians who play Star Fox --Kbdank71 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per naming conventions. Thunderbrand 03:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Pro-gun politicians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly maintained and poorly named category, half of the indexed articles don't even mention any sort of "pro-gun" endorsement. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:MTV Music Award Winners

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current category description is "These are the lists of MTV music award winners. (World Music Awards, Europe Music Awards and so forth)." This seems extremely broad, and I don't see how such a category would be useful in any way. If fully populated, it will only clutter articles. --musicpvm 02:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Canadian Sports Hall of Fame to Category:Canada's Sports Hall of Fame

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hall is called Canada's Sports Hall of Fame.Cloachland 00:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23&oldid=1136104582"