Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 11

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. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the subcategories are statehoods: Washington DC, Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico. User:Arual 21:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If we approve of this change, are we saying that all 'by state' categories should also be changed since they usually include territories? Vegaswikian 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Washington D.C. isn't a territory and I wouldn't want an even longer name than the one proposed for this category or any of its siblings. Chicheley 09:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Chicheley, and to avoid Vegaswikian's concern. The solution to the inclusion of DC and the territories in the state categories is to instead create a supercategory (perhaps Category:American people by political subdivision) that can then house Category:American people by state and by all other divisions. Postdlf 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The proposed title is a bit unwieldly. Technically, yes, it isn't perfectly accurate. However, American think in terms of states, unless they live in territories. "Political subdivision" is accurate but unrecognizable to common use. Americans in territories, though it is not technically correct are accostomed to this nomenclature as well. Vaquero100 13:03, 17 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.

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. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current category title is ambiguous.

• Rename per nom Antares33712 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Choalbaton 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Ramseystreet 12:53, 17 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.

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 misplaced request, use the move button, the talk page, or

• trying to consolidate disparate pages and categories. South Philly 21:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? This isn't a category; are you proposing that the page be renamed? That doesn't have to go through *FD (and certainly not through CFD in particular!) Kirill Lokshin 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take it to Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians to discuss a move. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, categories cannot just be moved like articles can, renames/moves do need to go through CFD. --JeffW 05:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree; the
  WP:MW page is more informative than simply listing a user's user name. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Please discuss this on
  masterka 03:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• ADMIN: PLEASE MOVE TO MISC. FOR DELETION--M@rēino 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom 216.141.226.190 06:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Inactive Wikipedians". --Chris Griswold 08:15, 15 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.

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. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had created the new Category:Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks football before recalling to use this page. This is related to the other CAT (footbal players) proposal 2 below for renaming. Thanks. Aaron charles 19:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the merger is already complete. ×Meegs 09:33, 12 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.

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. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

x-related is the form used by the grand-parent category Category:Lists by country as well as the only other lists by state category Category:Hawaii-related lists. JeffW 19:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -Dawson 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename thats cool Joe I 19:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Cloachland 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:27, 12 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.

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. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mascot of the University of Louisiana at Monroe changed on June 26, 2006 and the category should be changed for consistency. Aaron charles 19:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's true. [1] Rename. ×Meegs 09:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 04:26, 13 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.

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. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles listed in the category relate to the

• Rename per nom. Chicheley 19:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category currently contains 5 articles, and they do not relate only to the RCC - wimpae are historical, certainly others wear religious habits, veils, probably cowls, and it would not surprise me if some (high church) Anglicans even wore scapulars. If anything this should be renamed to Category:Monastic clothing and kept as a subcategory of Category:Asceticism Gimmetrow 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -SynKobiety 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Gimmetrow (even if he didn't actually vote for it, it's the best solution on offer) TheGrappler 12:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to
  ra 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Note that another discussion is taking place simultaneously at the category talk page. —
  ra 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -Cheyinka 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of topics related to religious life that dont have to do with clothing. Use your imagination: Vows, related Church documents, theology of consecration, the various families of religious. And of course there is the age old (450 years) attempt by Anglicans to change the official name of the Catholic Church, which is a complete violation of WP conventions and policies.
  • Comment it was a dirty trick, Fishhead, to have votes going on simultaneously at two different locations, here and here on the same issue. Interesting that you diverted voters from the WPProject Catholicism page to the false voting page and voted there yourself to make it look legitimate. What is the is the WP discipline for election fraud? I wonder if this vote can even be considered valid.Vaquero100 04:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember to
      ra 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• 'Keep' EBentley 23:48, 14 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.

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. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles listed in the category relate to the

• Rename per nom. Chicheley 19:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rename. This category existed for over a year without a conflict, then 2 weeks ago a sentence was added saying it involved the RCC. This is a content dispute, not a CfD question. Gimmetrow 21:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Having perused the content, I believe the omission of any significant Eastern content suggests this category is intended to be particular to the Roman church. Gimmetrow 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -SynKobiety 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Guess what this is a subcategory of:
  ra 18:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Note that another discussion is taking place simultaneously at the category talk page. —
  ra 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This is a subcategory of an "RCC" named category because there is a well organized campaign to violate WP conventions with regard to exactly one institution which is currently not very popular in modern society. WP recognizes institutions by the names they have for themselves without regard to and POV those names might express. This is accorded to all institutions on WP except the Catholic Church which has used the same name for about 1,900 years! Who the hell are these editors who think it is their perogative to change the name of an institution older than any other? And of course there is the age old (450 years) attempt by Anglicans to change the official name of the Catholic Church..
  • Comment That is not just a "discussion" as you put it, Mira, that is a VOTE!! It was a dirty trick, Fishhead, to have votes going on simultaneously at two different locations, here and here on the same issue. Interesting that you diverted voters from the WPProject Catholicism page to the false voting page and voted there yourself to make it look legitimate. You had to have known what you were doing because you voted twice on the same issues!!!! What is the WP discipline for election fraud? I wonder if this vote can even be considered valid. Fishhead, I suggest you explain yourself on the Project Catholicism page--better yet, I will. Vaquero100 04:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember to
      ra 17:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep EBentley 23:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --WikiCats 07:43, 15 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.

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 merge. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More obvious title. Tim! 18:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Chicheley 19:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Anirvan 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename - These are categories and articles that list villains or groups if villains listed by the specific protagonist they are known for opposing; "Fictional villains" is too vague to sum that up. I am open, however, to a more appropriate, properly descriptive name change. --Chris Griswold 22:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Fictional villains by protagonist then. BTW most of the articles in the category don't seem to belong as they are just about supporting characters, not just villains. --JeffW 05:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't we already have Category:Supervillains by adversary ? --GCarty 09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge to Category:Supervillains by adversary. Good catch. --JeffW 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. These are collections of hero-specific villains, and in the comic parlance, that's a rogues gallery. Whether the title changes, it should not be merged into the villains category.--Mike Selinker 05:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. A blander title is better. Choalbaton 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and because "rogues gallery" is really a term only used by DC Comics, not the other publishing houses -Markeer 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not. See
    Rogues gallery for more detail.--Mike Selinker 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Rename make it more versatile -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge per nom. Twittenham 12:10, 17 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.

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 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to send this to speedy to lower-case the "S", but it is also necessary to specify which senate, in line with the intention of the category, as there are also senates in individual U.S. states. Chicheley 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. Chicheley 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. There are also senates in other countries. BoojiBoy 01:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant country is specified in "African American". Chicheley 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "African American" is occasionally (mis)used to describe black people from other countries, and thus is not an adequate DAB. BoojiBoy 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But since it is misused, that's not encyclopedic or verifiable. --William Allen Simpson 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:African American senators of the United States or, per WAS below, Category:African-Americans in the United States Senate, as otherwise I'd say there are too many adjective/als before category's subject "senators" in the current name. Regards, David Kernow 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC), expanded 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:African-Americans in the United States Senate -- match existing Category:Presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate and Category:Women in the United States Senate --William Allen Simpson 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match category:Female United States Senators, which is up for renaming to Female United States senators. Osomec 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Category:African-Americans in the United States Senate (first choice) or Category:African-American United States Senators (second choice--note captial "S" and hyphen). In any case Category:African American United States senators is incorrect. older ≠ wiser 14:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relisting from June 27 with a view to gaining consensus on how to rename this category Tim! 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Amended proposal to Category:African-American United States Senators as I now understand that Americans insist on a capital S and I missed out the hyphen before. Chicheley 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you want to, create a subcat called Category:African Americans who are Senators in nations other than the USA. See how quickly that one fills up.--M@rēino 14:21, 12 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.

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 20:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no agreed definition of what constitutes a microbrewery other than it is a brewery which produces an amount of beer per year ranging from less than 1,500 barrels to less than 1 million barrels [2] Usage varies from country to country - and the term is sometimes replaced with the term craft brewer. The majority of breweries in the world are small and produce less than 15,000 barrels a year, so the majority of breweries could be classed as microbreweries by size. A more reasonable approach would be to create a Global breweries category to deal with the smaller amount of breweries that do not fit the microbrewery tag, and which - because they have brewing plant in more than one country - do not fit easily on the breweries by region category. This proposal is contentious. There is a debate going on at the WikiBeerProject [3] SilkTork 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—57 brewery articles were in this category, until it was unilaterally deleted by SilkTork, without any consensus or even discussion. The project straw poll shows zero support for deletion. Furthermore, SilkTork tried to sneak in the change, using misleading edit summaries, then falsely claimed consensus in a previous discussion which didn't even mention this category. Until there is any support shown for deletion, the articles in question should have the category restored. —Michael Z. 2006-07-11 19:39 Z

Thank you for repopulating the category while this discussion is ongoing. ×Meegs 10:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Rename to Category:Craft breweries. While I acknowledge that there is no clearly authoritative definition here (either for "microbrewery" or "craft brewery"), it still feel it is a useful category as evidenced by the number of articles that were in the category before purging and the support at the Beer WikiProject for keeping it. We should work to come up with reasonably objective criteria for category inclusion. Mike Dillon 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have heard not a single reasonable argument for deletion. While the definition could be tightened, the definition still exists. Furthermore, the suggestion made on the project's talk page that if a brewery is a microbrewery it's inherently NN is ludicrous. --
  Stlemur 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep against nom Antares33712 01:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sounds like POV on SilkTork's part Drmagic 01:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's an interesting comment. The reason I am suggesting removing the cat is that it is inherently POV. As there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a microbrewery each person will have their own opinion, their own POV. Whenever someone places a microbrewery tag on an article they are making a POV judgement that another editor may disagree with. The term itself is contentious and vague. Which definition are you thinking of using when you wish to apply the microbrewery tag: this one: "In the United States, a microbrewery is a brewery producing less than 1 million hectolitres per year." [4], which is the US Government view; this one: "Microbrewery - Breweries and brewpubs producing less than 1,500 barrels per year." [5], which is by Bill Owens at American Brewer Magazine; or this one: "Microbrewery: A brewery that produces less than 15,000 barrels (17,600 hectoliters) of beer per year." [6], by the Brewers Association. And if you are thinking that the term microbrewery conveys something more than just size - as in approach to brewing or customer satisfaction, then you'd have to show in what way you feel brewery X is different to brewery Y - and if you start getting into areas of use of adjuncts or flexibility of approach, then even global brewers produce beers with no adjuncts, while small breweries use adjuncts; and some small brewers have been producing the same beer for decades, while global brewers are altering their portfolios to reflect changing customer taste. You see? I'd be happy for someone to explain to me the advantage of keeping such a category. I enjoy a debate. And I could well be wrong here. I'd appreciate someone explaining what they feel a microbrewery actually is, and why we should have a category for such breweries. SilkTork 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the superset of all of these definitions should be included in the category. That way, no matter what you reasonably expect a microbrewery to be, you'll be able to find it in the category listing.

Are there any problems with this approach? Are any of the definitions unreasonable, or for the sake of neutrality, we should ask are they challenged or controversial? —Michael Z. 2006-07-12 16:59 Z

I'm interested. You are suggesting we list breweries in terms of the amount of beer they produce? It's possible, but difficult. We could, of course, also list breweries in terms of the style of beer they produce. Or we could list breweries by how long they have been in existence (a particular favourite here in Europe, especially here in the UK). Or we could list breweries in terms of ownership (another favourite in Europe, especially in the UK, where family run breweries are favoured - and have their own organisation: [7]). All these things are possible. And there is a sense in which I like all of them. However, when the beer categories were sorted out and breweries were grouped as they are now by region [8], that seemed the most useful way of organising them. The volume of beer that a brewery produces has nothing to do with its quality or importance. The brewery that most beer geeks like myself deem to be the most interesting produces a very small amount of beer:

Courage Russian Imperial Stout. Size, as such, means nothing in terms of the brewery's quality or importance. And size as determined by a term as contentious as "microbrewery" is certainly the least exact way of measuring it. I see where you are coming from - and I'm aware and interested in the many ways that breweries can be categorised. However, it seems to me that most of the ways we could categorise breweries are either not helpful, or are too vague or are POV. And using the term "microbreweries" is unhelpful, vague and POV - it hits all three! If the microbrewery cat survives this nomination (and I hope it doesn't, but looks like it might because most people don't understand the issues and are not getting involved in the debate), I will endeavour to make it as user friendly as possible. Though I would still like you to give me what you feel is a usable definition of microbrewery so that I can see how best to make the category work for you. SilkTork 22:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

If there is any controversy about whether a particular brewery falls into a particular category, then we should look at the definitions that you've mentioned above, and evaluate the categorization in light of them. Until then, what's the problem? —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 03:37 Z

The problem is in the phrase you have just used: "most beer drinkers know what they generally indicate". Among the founding principles of Wikipedia is that the information contained here should be verifiable. I am trying to indicate with references to reliable sources that there is no verifiable evidence that the term microbrewery is solid enough to use in an encyclopedia as a category - that all we have is the gut feeling of various drinkers that they roughly know what it means, and a variety of formal definitions of size. So the problem is that it is a misleading, unverified, POV term and when used as a category immediately invites editors to indulge in POV Original Research. The main information available for whether a brewery goes into the microbrewery category will be the editor's general gut feeling. That people use the term is not in dispute - I use the term in speech to fellow beer geeks and in articles I have written [9]. What is in dispute is the usefulness of a vague POV term as a category. The term, while used, is widely acknowledged as being vague, and is being replaced by the term craft brewery, which is also seen as problematic. What people mostly want to indicate is that they are unhappy with the "big" brewers, and would like to support either their local brewery, or an interesting brewery from another country that they have heard good things about. My suggestion is that we just turn things around, and look at categorising the "big" breweries rather than the non-"big" breweries. This will be easier because there are fewer of them. Criteria will be easier to draw up. And it will solve the problem of which regional brewery category the multi-site breweries should be placed. The end result will be the same. All breweries not placed in the "big" brewery category will be the sort of brewery that drinkers gut instinct tells them is a microbrewery - ie: 95% of the breweries on Wikipedia. SilkTork 09:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just use the superset of the very concrete definitions you yourself cited? Nothing vague about that. And what is the verifiable definition of a "big" brewery? —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 14:40 Z

• One of the notability criteria for inclusion of companies on Wiki is: "The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices ^{1 2}. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded." Footnotes: "* ^Note 1 : Examples of such stock market indices: Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, S&P 400, and S&P 600, CAC 40, Nikkei 225, FTSE 100 Index, FTSE 250 Index. See list of stock market indices for more.
• ^Note 2 : Companies that form the bases for stock market indices will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such indices will be complete regardless." Other criteria could be that the company has brewing plant in at least two different countries. Stuff like that. If you're interested we could work on that together.

The other notion I'm not sure about - are you suggesting that we have a series of categories for breweries by size, ranging from global down to brewpub? As I indicated above, I'm not sure of the value of judging all breweries by size - though there is, I acknowledge, a widespread interest in differentiating "mass-market"/"global" breweries from the rest. Once, however, we get away from the "mass-market" brewery philosophy, people's interest in splitting into precise sizes fades quickly. There are other ways of categorising breweries, as I indicated above - such as by age. In the UK we have a particular interest in certain breweries which are commonly over 100 years of age which we term "Regional Breweries". These are of varying sizes - their main grouping is by age, and by sphere of influence (the region). British beer geeks are constantly debating which breweries are "Regional" and which ones are not. And, while Greene King was growing in size the term "Super Regional" was used. Not to do with size - but to do with distribution of beer. My point in all this, is that there are many ways of grouping breweries. Grouping them by country was seen as the most popular and most workable way. At the time the beer cats were reorganised the Microbrewery cat got left behind because it was placed off in a side-shoot of Brewing. That it got left was a mistake. But I'm quite happy to debate the issues. Something positive may come from this. SilkTork 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting a range of categories. A brewpub is a different type of brewery, which typically only brews beer for in-house service. Some brewpubs are also microbreweries.

But that's beside the point. If there is a dispute about whether something is a microbrewery, we can use the superset of the criteria you mentioned further above. That's not vague. What's wrong with that? —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 21:16 Z

• Sorry - I'm being a bit blond. Could you rephrase? I think you're suggesting that we use the varying definitions of microbrewery as criteria for deciding if something is a microbrewery? But you can't mean that, as the definitions are shifting sands. I'm having problems with the word "superset". I don't know what that means in this context. SilkTork 22:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that in the case of a dispute, if an article meets any of the three definitions of microbrewery you cited, then it can be categorized as a microbrewery. How is that "shifting sands"?

Besides, I think you may be imagining a problem that doesn't exist. I haven't seen any disputes about breweries being categorized as microbreweries. —Michael Z. 2006-07-14 02:02 Z

• I'm clearing fighting a lost cause here. The microbrewery category is here to stay - so we need to now work out the best way forward. I will honour my commitment to making it work and populating it appropriately - but you do need to explain to me very clearly what you want. Do you want to continue this on the Project page, my talk page or yours? SilkTork 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a logical category. If we also need to add Category:Craft breweries or a few others because of local standards then we can. Nothing wrong with these being included under Category:Types of breweries. Vegaswikian 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course there is a definition. Any brewery that's not one of the 2 dozen or so major breweries is a microbrew. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that, in Britain at least, there is a legal definition: breweries under a certain production level, in volume produced per year, get tax breaks. I will see if I can look up what that production level is. --

Stlemur 15:59, 16 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.

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 all. the wub "?!" 21:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am merging all of these into one vote -- I see no reason why someone would vote differently for one over the others.--M@rēino 14:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Cultural icons
• Category:Cultural icons of the 1950s
• Category:Cultural icons of the 1960s
• Category:Cultural icons of the 1970s
• Category:Cultural icons of the 1980s
• Category:Cultural icons of the 1990s
• Category:Cultural icons of the 2000s

Delete due to non NPOV. who is or isn't an icon is a matter of opinion. Drmagic 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. (Applies to all the below). Chicheley 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV conerns TheGrappler 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop this vote and speedy this one in the bit bucket Antares33712 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, icon is not POV, if defined by the media 216.141.226.190 06:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Casper Claiborne 10:30, 15 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.

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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should actually be a speedy merge. Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios series was created in April 2006, for apparently no reason at all, and various series are staggered between both categories. --FuriousFreddy 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 03:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Cartoon Network TV series per naming convnetion, dropping the Hanna-Barbera as the Cartoon Network is the current company name (Hanna-Barbera redirects to Cartoon Nework). Then create a new sub-category Category:Cartoon Network characters. -Lady Aleena @ 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lady Aleena's modfication. Some of the series (serieses?) really were Hana–Barbera, and predated Cartoon Network. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Series is both singular and plural. -LA @ 06:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from June 27 for more discussion Tim! 17:44, 11 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.

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 11:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "and Crown Dependencies" is added it will be possible to allocate the airports in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to this category, which will tidy up the parent category. This category is a subcategory of two other parent categories which use the phrase "British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies". Choalbaton 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator. Choalbaton 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't there some more general term that could be used instead of "Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies" and avoid the ridiculously long name? How about Category:British airports outside Great Britain? --JeffW 05:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In short, no. Your proposal ignores Northern Ireland and the term "British" has far too many shades of meaning to be a good option here. Chicheley 09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as the Channel Islands and IoM are inaccurately listed under UK for the moment. --Ayrshire--77 08:14, 13 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.

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 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pointless extra click. Category:Religion and Category:Philosophy are rightly separately, and it is no more appropriate to create a portmanteau category for portals than it would be to combine the subject area categories. Honbicot 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Honbicot 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --
  Steel 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DiePerfekteWelle 14:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia, it's time we call a truce of

• Delete per nom. Honbicot 15:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 09:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 13:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If kept, inclusion/exclusion criteria would be what? TheGrappler 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the argument is that something happening in just in the United States is not notable, that doesn't make sense. Mere reporting what issues are included in the culture wars is not biased.Although the problem of bias in such articles is always a problem, I dont see why the category itself is problematic. Perhaps a rename would be in order such as Category:North American cultur war topics or Category:United States culture war topics.
• Delete Articles should be grouped by subject area, not media impact. Nathcer 21:28, 17 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.

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 (I boldly implemented Carlossuarez46's suggestion as less ambiguous). --RobertG ♬ talk 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match its 39 siblings. Chicheley 13:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- per naming conventions. -- Longhair 04:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ancient Roman murder victims, otherwise you can add Aldo Moro and virtually every murdered Roman pope. Carlossuarez46 21:22, 12 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.

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 16:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing this on the articles about front rank politicians - which suffer from serious category clutter - and it just doesn't add anything. It isn't a defining characteristic and according to the text some of them were only honorary members. We shouldn't be categorising people by every conceivable affiliation. Chicheley 12:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Chicheley 12:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 15:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redefine to remove the honorary members. It may indeed be a defining characteristic for active Rotarians. Anirvan 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Michael 04:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can't see how it can be a defining characteristic of anyone prominent enough to deserve an article. Choalbaton 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Critically this is (1) unlikely to be significant enough to mention in the article, and (2) therefore go uncorroborated and unsourced, besides (3) not being a terribly useful thing to search by anyway. Perhaps a list? TheGrappler 17:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; while I tend to agree many memberships are not noteworthy, their removal should be systematic. There's no point in deleting Rotarians and keeping Lions, Moose, Elks and Jaycees, not to mention Iron Arrow Honor Society members, Eagle Scouts, Phi Beta Kappas and so on. -choster 19:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Antares33712 23:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have far sillier cats than this 216.141.226.190 06:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please get an account and nominate some of them for deletion. Twittenham 12:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial. Osomec 11:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hobbies, interests, personal tastes, clubs etc, etc are not category material. Twittenham 12:13, 17 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.

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 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic. Category clutter. Chicheley 12:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Chicheley 12:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I nominated this cat for deletion previously, but in less than three months it has acquired two more sports people. It should eventually be bigger.--Chaser T 12:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not whether it could grow, but whether it should grow. Category:People with a brain could grow. Chicheley 13:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I don't think we'd have to put that many people in the cat you suggest. ;) You haven't really offered a clear reason for deletion. I think it could be marginally useful to find ambidextrous sports people. Why do you think we should delete this?--Chaser T 14:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have given two reasons, and they are both perfectly clear in my opinion Chicheley 19:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 15:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial information. --musicpvm 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and aboves. --
  Steel 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Almost empty; also useless. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much too trivial. No-one has an article because they are ambidextrous. Choalbaton 14:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First off, ambidextrousness is a defining characteristic. Despite what Choalbaton would assert, many of the people on this list do indeed have articles because they are ambidextrous, or more directly because that talent augmented their athletic ability -- but anyways, that's a bogus reason for deletion, because 99% of the existing categories (like "musician" or "autodidactic" or "Catholic") fail to sum up in one phrase why the person is notable. Also, an update: I just more than doubled the size of this cat in about five minutes, from 8 to 18. There are Ambidextrous people, despite what Slgrandson thinks.--M@rēino 14:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't dispute that this could gain a significant number of members, but (1) unlikely to be significant enough to mention in the article, and (2) therefore go uncorroborated and unsourced, besides (3) not being a terribly useful thing to search by anyway. Perhaps a list would be better? TheGrappler 17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep against nom Antares33712 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ambidextrity is a very unique trait and not everybody has. We have far sillier cats than this. KEEP 216.141.226.190 06:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial. Osomec 11:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I fear for the long term usefulness of the category system as people will keep creating trivial categories. Even if most of them get deleted, the overall situation will get worse and worse. There is a systemic tendency to accumulate trivial categories as it is much harder to delete a category than to create one. Twittenham 12:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ramseystreet 12:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the claims to the contrary, this is trivia. There is a search function which can be used to find the word "ambidextrous" and that is sufficient. Nathcer 21:31, 17 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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the usual style. Chicheley 12:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Honbicot 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:46, 12 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.

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 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{{What does "liberalism" means in a French context? This is very slippery category, because "liberalism" hasn't got the same sense in the US and in France. In France, "liberalism" refers to

• Strong Keep. There is an article
  Intangible 13:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. The article doesn't discuss all of this, and is like a history dissertation, which should be better seen as an essay on comparing these political families rather than as an argument (where is it?) claiming that "liberalism" is similar to "radicalism". Intangible seems to forget (or plainly to ignore, which is worst in the extent that he is asking for many deletions just now) that the
    France in the 19th century... Tazmaniacs 13:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]