Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primrose Hill Gang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete this ten-article category based on last year's fading neologism. The "Primrose Hill Gang" is a label which was used for a while in 2006 by some parts of the British news media to refer to a group of young rising stars in the Labour Party (UK), named after the trendy Primrose Hill suburb. The term seems to have been a sort-lived neologism (only 33 non-wikipedia ghits). There is no wikipedia article on the group (and no sign of one having been deleted), and the "gang" isn't even mentioned in the article on Primrose Hill. If the term is somehow revived, it would be best to start with an article which could list the people involved, but the category seems at best premature. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Faded flowers. Johnbod 22:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Crockspot 20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and
  WP:NEO, Tewfik^Talk 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Beorhtric 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a UK resident who listens regularly to one of the main UK radio stations covering news including national politics throughout the day, it's not a term that I hear mentioned on a regular basis. In fact, I can't remember it being mentioned at all. I think nominator is therefore right that the term was short-lived--Peter cohen 23:19, 12 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States History (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge / Redirect into Category:History of the United States, convention of Category:History by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Johnbod 22:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The articles in this category are already in their proper US categories. This category is simply extraneous. Hmains 01:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per nom, Tewfik^Talk 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per nom. --GHcool 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per nom. --Peter cohen 23:20, 12 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chinese mythology in anime to Category:Chinese mythology in anime and manga

Nominator's rationale: I am the creator of this category. This title is a mistake of mine, title should include manga, as the overlap of anime and manga would make categorizing them separately a bit of a nightmare. CaveatLector^Talk 13:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• support can this be a speedy rename? 132.205.44.5 21:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per creator/nom. Johnbod 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, speedy if possible, for consistency with almost all similar categories, to avoid the obvious nightmares referred to by nom, and because it's being requested by the creator. Seems obvious, reasonable and non-controversial, and if not speedied, perhaps an early close per
  WP:IAR) would be appropriate? Xtifr _tälk 08:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy rename per nom and relevant criteria. I would if I could :-) Tewfik^Talk 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per nom. --GHcool 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy rename per all above. --Peter cohen 23:21, 12 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was repurpose. I could remove the category from the template, but someone is going to manually add the category to all of the talk pages. --Kbdank71 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An

Amphoe is a sort of Thai district. This was a wanted category, populated by {{Infobox Amphoe}}. It seems to me that this is a WikiProject maintenance category and as such should be relegated to talk pages. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• To talk per nom. Johnbod 13:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose per nom, Tewfik^Talk 20:24, 9 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete – minimal number of articles with no chance of category enlargement as members of this organisation must be notable in their own right to merit an article as per decision in this discussion. Notability of category subject is questionable as it is a research organisation that publishes findings for own members and is not a general publisher. --BlackJack

• Keep This organisation is the leading authority on cricket statistics (and cricket is one of the world's largest sports and perhaps the most statistical). The work of the organisation is relevant to all cricket followers. The claim that the category cannot be expanded is extremely dubious in the present, and certainly wrong as to the future. Dominictimms 13:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment is not supposed to be in all bold, but there is a technical error. Dominictimms 13:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unbolding BlackJack's sig solved the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Firstly, my apologies for bolding the edit page. The Ledbetter AfD quoted above deleted numerous ACS-related articles because of non-notability. Those articles had been created by someone in the ACS who claimed that being an ACS committee member confers notability but the consensus here, in line with WP:Notability guidelines, is that membership of a group is insufficient and subjects must be notable in their own right outside the group. In fact there are only a handful of ACS members who are notable in their own right and so it is inconceivable that this category could expand by more than a couple of subjects. The ACS is not the leading authority on cricket statistics: that is Wisden Cricketers' Almanack. As BrownHairedGirl points out, the ACS has only 1000 members and yet cricket has arguably 1 billion fans worldwide: the ACS is really not that important and an article is surely sufficient coverage of it on Wikipedia. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article
  Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians says "it has a worldwide membership of over 1000 and is open to anyone with a relevant interest", so membership is neither a defining attribute of those involved nor a guide to their importance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per BrownHairedGirl (whose arguments impressed me more than nom's). In response to the arguments raised by Dominictimms, I'd say: those would be great arguments at AfD for keeping articles on the topic, but I don't think they apply to a category. The organization is clearly notable; individual memberships, however, are not. Xtifr _tälk 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BHG and
  WP:OCAT, Tewfik^Talk 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Membership is a defining characteristic of the people in the category. Beorhtric 20:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is wrong. The ACS is a club that is open to anyone with a relevant interest who is willing to pay the subscription. The people currently in the category (apart from Baggett who is up for AfD) are all notable in their own right as published authors. Their membership of the ACS is incidental and no more noteworthy than if they are members of their local gardening club. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and use a list of notable Historians in the main article. >Radiant< 14:40, 13 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alphabet book series to Category:Children's alphabet books

Nominator's rationale: Rename; broader scope would include all alphabet books (such as

Animalia), which need their own category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename to allow the inclusion of solitary books. ×Meegs 18:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and rescope per nom, though I question whether the category should exist at all. Tewfik^Talk 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will lessen the load on Category:Children's books and Category:Children's picture books considerably. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not opposed to such organisational rationale, though we haven't in the past treated such cases consistently. Tewfik^Talk 00:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Tewfik. --GHcool 16:58, 10 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c ^[talk] 00:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Questions/Items/poeple that may have to do with the creation of the Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as awkward/obtuse/misspelled. Or at the very least please think of a better name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this mess. Vague & meaningless "may have to do with". Wryspy 02:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion/exclusions. I gather from the articles categorized here that someone began at the letter A and never progressed; I would have thought that God might have been a good candidate for inclusion in such a category, but alas I forgot that God was not a question, item or people. Carlossuarez46 05:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pay attention, Carlos! According to this category, the correct spelling is poeple ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooops and God is a poeple! Good to see you back here. :-) Carlossuarez46 17:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pointless. –
  sebi 09:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - now the Dr is not around, who will record these gems? Johnbod 11:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He left a link to his collection, so I was bold and added this. I don't believe he'll mind. :) Xtifr _tälk 04:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Dominictimms 13:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above (and add to
  WP:BJAODN). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - sigh. How does something like this even survive long enough to make it to CfD? - Crockspot 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this nonsense, though I suppose we should be thankful for the amusement, Tewfik^Talk 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, rename to Category:People, places, things, actions, attributes, concepts and speculation that may or may not have anything to do wth the creation of this or any other universe, and make it a category redirect to Category:Categories. :) Xtifr _tälk 11:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion - I can't bear the thought of snuffing out such a vital spark of creativity in its very infancy. Why, he's only up to letter 'A' at this point -- and it would be ever so much fun to see what else he'll come up with. Can't we take it out of the primary categories and move it over to Category:Wikipedia humor?? Cgingold 11:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm sure that more than two articles fit under this category, but I cannot imagine anybody applying this category to anything of actual importance such as God or the Big Bang Theory. --GHcool 17:01, 10 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename NASCAR as nominated, auto racing to Motorsport terminology --Kbdank71 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Auto racing terms to Category:Auto racing terminology

Propose renaming Category:NASCAR terms to Category:NASCAR terminology

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to the form that is standard across other sports.

Craig.Scott 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename to proposed titles. –
  sebi 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename to Category:Motor racing terminology- or Category:Motorsport terminology per Royalbroil below (added) - and Category:NASCAR terminology respectively. Some global categories are still using the specifically-US term "Auto racing", while most have gone to the more neutral "Motor racing", which they all should do (unless US-only categories). Johnbod 11:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Motor racing terminology and Category:NASCAR terminology respectively per [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]. Dominictimms 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both. I like the words "NASCAR terminology". "Terminology" is clearer than "Terms". As for the general category, I think it should be
  WP:NASCAR, and I will note this CFD discussion on the talk page of each WikiProject. Royalbroil 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename. I am inclined to agree with my fellow WikiProject member. I would not have any reservations about these relatively minor and sensible changes. Quite logical. Adrian M. H. 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Motorsport" is fine with me; I only saw "Motor racing" categories, so if this rename succeeds, we should maybe rename other categories to match the project. Johnbod 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, I don't think there was a very clear consensus as to which to use when I created these, so I just picked one or the other. If there is now, I don't have any objections to renaming them to match that. Recury 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, "terminology" is a clear improvement. As for what to call the first category, let me point out two things. First of all, renaming to "motorsports" would include a number of sports that would not current be included in this category, most notably, the entire tree at
  Freestyle Motocross. All of which means: I'm not quite sure what the right name is, but we may need some cleanup later, depending. In fact, browsing some of the related categories, I think we need some cleanup already, as several subcategories of Category:Racing sports are not, strictly, limited to racing. Xtifr _tälk 11:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Actually, I do not have a problem including the terminology in the borderline "motorsports" that you suggested too. All are sports competitions that involve motors, and there is some crossover terminology that applies to all. As to moving the categories around, it should be discussed at
  WikiProject Motorsport. Please start a discussion there if you want to change things. The purpose of WikiProject is to "organise and improve the common areas between different motorsport projects; and improve aspects of motorsport that are not covered by other projects". The WikiProject has a group of members from a wide variety of motorsports backgrounds. Royalbroil 13:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's all fine; I'm pretty happy with any of the options offered so far. I just wanted to make sure people realized that there may be side issues. As for the Wikiproject, I don't think I'm enough of an expert to say much more than I've already said, but I'll willing to repost my comments over there, if nagged. :) Xtifr _tälk 10:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Motor racing terminology and Category:NASCAR terminology. The greater breadth of "Motor racing" is an advantage of the category, not a weakness. Beorhtric 20:40, 10 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Casualties of Battle of Karbala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Battle of Karbala killed in action, convention of Category:Killed in action by conflict. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or delete So far only 1 article, though a couple more could be added. Johnbod 11:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rename per nom; this has already been populated with five categories, and it seems that there should be many more. Tewfik^Talk 20:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can still only see Hussein in the category? Johnbod 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I was looking at Category:Killed in action by conflict. In hindsight, there are only 3-4 notable dead in the battle, and so we should instead delete. Tewfik^Talk 03:46, 10 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was Rename, as nominated to avoid ambiguity. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cinemas and movie theaters in Georgia to Category:Cinemas and movie theaters in Georgia (U.S. state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in line with the other categories for the U.S. state, to avoid confusion with the country. Abberley2 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to proposed title. –
  sebi 09:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom. Dominictimms 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per parent cat convention, Tewfik^Talk 20:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Renameper comments above. --Peter cohen 23:27, 12 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete and listify entry on main Black and white village article. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black and white village (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Black and white villages, or Delete as non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotes a footpath in Hertfordshire. Thus far less than the name suggests, but it cannot be expanded to cover all villages with lots of these buildings, as there is no way to define which villages should be included. Abberley2 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Abberley. –
  sebi 09:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete & add names (sorry, name) to article. Johnbod 11:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic and a very confusing name as a category. A list (as it were) at the main article, as suggested by Johnbod, is a far better approach. Xtifr _tälk 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 20:36, 9 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.