Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 28

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 Category:Musicians who left Nazi Germany to Category:Musicians who emigrated to escape Nazism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musicians who left Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to
  cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom. Terraxos (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, 'left' is a quite broad term and doesn't necessarily mean migration. --Soman (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, I created this category: the renaming sounds like a good idea. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2008 (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, and also rename Category:Year of television program debut missing, Category:Year of television program series ending missing, and Category:Television program series endings by year in similar fashion. I somehow missed these when I renamed all the others of this kind.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television program debuts by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Merge into Category:Television series debuts by year.
• Rationale: Duplicative category -- there is no real distinction between programs and series in the context of debuts. Notified creator with {{
  cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per nom - substantially identical to an existing category. Terraxos (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Category:Years in animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete - Overcategorization, there is just one article here, no reason to believe others will be added any time soon. The article should be placed directly in
  cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• May as well delete for now as there is only one article. It can be recreated if more articles in the series are written. Tim! (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: The above comment is from the category's creator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgingold (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (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 merge into Category:Star Trek ship classes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Andorian ship classes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated, upmerge. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and upmerge per nom. Terraxos (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I never knew Andorra had a Navy.... 06:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs)
• Fair enough, upmerge. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. -
  talk) 21:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete & upmerge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2008 (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 upmerge. Kbdank71 15:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romulan characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one character left in this category Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and upmerge to Category:Star Trek characters.Terraxos (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I find it annoying that when proposing to delete an intersection category, editors here propose a merger to just one parent category. If merging, this should be upmerged to both category:Romulans and category:Star Trek characters.
• Keep and populate. Another thing that is annoying is that when short articles are merged and redirected to other articles, editors remove the categories. What's wrong with leaving redirects in categories? - Fayenatic (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I am following standard procedure which says if the article is merged, the category rarely follows it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're saying that you don't add the old categories onto the merged article. I agree, that would usually be correct. However, I am asking for something different: the old categories should not be deleted from the old page when it is made into a redirect. If the merged article is not in the same categories, it's frequently useful to keep (at least some of) the original categories on the redirect page. Is there a policy on this? - Fayenatic (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • P.S. Happy New Year!
• Update: Category now contains 2 articles and 3 more redirects from old merges. Seems to me that it is worth keeping. I could add some new redirects but will await the outcome of this CFD. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & upmerge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHY upmerge per nom? (i) There are now more members than 1 as was stated in the nom. (ii) This is an intersection, so why upmerge to only one of the two parent cats? Please reply with rationale. Fayenatic (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a logical extension of
      WP:FICT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • If you're not going to offer clarification, then it appears that you are not serious about persuading anyone. Wikipedians do change their views, I've seen it even today, and I'm open to argument, if you can be bothered! Are you implying that if intersection categories within fiction do not have independent real-world coverage, then they should be deleted, by unexplained extension of the disputed guideline
        WP:FICT? Clearly this would wipe out most other sub-cats of Category:Star Trek aliens
        and probably a great deal more. However, I haven't seen any policy which says that the notability requirements for articles apply to intersection categories. I find them a useful way to navigate Wikipedia.
      • I note that it wasn't the nominator after all who said merge to only one parent category; the nominator actually seems to have made no proposal. Anyway, I would value your explicit support that if merger happens for an intersection category, it should be to both parents. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dislike your badgering tone. I have stated my grounds - its not whether I am "serious about persuading anyone" or "can be bothered" - in the grand scheme of life I will go on whether this goes or stays - like any other category here. One doesn't have to be fanatical or abusive to state one's point. As for the logical consequence of
          WP:FICT - these characters by alien species have little real world import and could easily be grouped together without having little species categories for each - and what about all the mixed species aliens, like Spock or is the Trekkie fans' view of the Star Trek universe like the Confederate South where one drop of "bad blood" puts you into an "alien" type category? Hmmm, what Rodenberry would think of his fans... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I apologise for giving offense, and I'm sorry you found my tone abusive. That wasn't my intention. I just wanted clarification, which I did not find with your 5-word reference to a policy. If you look at my edits, you'll see that I do plenty of merging and approve some deletions myself, so I don't think I am fanatical. Ah - maybe my user name gave that impression!
          • As for the mixed species aliens, the current practice is to categorise them in Category:Star Trek hybrids, and also in character categories for both parents' species if those categories exist. In Spock's case, there is (rightly) no category for Human (Star Trek) characters, so he is only in two categories.
          • If these categories of characters by species were to be deleted, they should first be listified within the articles on each species. However, I think enough people have heard of Romulans to keep and expand this one. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have been spoofed in Family Guy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete: A useless category, overcategorization. If needed, the category can be listified. Dan Leveille^TALK 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hopeless idea for a category. Terraxos (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining characteristic. –Pomte 09:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Truthanado (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (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 keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primates of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete; created by

talk) 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Underpopulated. Over categorisation. Ludicrous name. -
  talk) 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment It's underpopulated because it's a recently established church. The name is perfectly OK, suitable for persons who are primates of the
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• PS This was discussed in an earlier cfd. There may be a case for a rename to Patriarchs of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, which seems more commonly used.
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep as per last time. Nom's arguments not exactly watertight here! Primates I think constitute a wider scheme, if not quite as wide as in PW's heyday. There were no !votes for deletion in the last debate, I note. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep head of 500,000 person organization seems a notable characteristic and probably defining for those in that position. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patriarchs of the Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic National Churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, on request from

-- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment This category was created by Lakemont, thought to be a sock-puppet of Pastorwayne, who created the related category
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Underpopulated. Over categorisation. Ludicrous name not in accordance with other categories. -
  talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment It's underpopulated because it's a recently established entity. The name is perfectly OK, suitable for persons who are patriarchs of the
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Only 3 of the 16 churches in this union have articles, and the UK website says:" In order to avoid confusion, it is best to use the full name, Brazilian Catholic Church, when referring to our church body". The Primate category above covers these well enough. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is the Primate of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church always going to be the Patriarch of the Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic National Churches? (It looks like it from the articles.) In which case this is a duplication.
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In practice one imagines so. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To date (since the 1950s) it duplicates
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete but provide redirect to Category:Primates of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. If the holders of the office are the same persons, it is clearly a redundant category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this seems a mirror organization of the above and hence redundant. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2008 (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 no consensus. Kbdank71 15:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• to distinguish between the
  Republic of China (Taiwan). Shiva_eVolved 02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose The parent is
  Snocrates 05:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oppose per

Snocrates thanks Astuishin (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

With respect, aside from a few articles, the Government of China category merely leads to the sub-cats for PRC and ROC; there are different categories for prior Chinese imperial and transitional governments and history, where any such period article may belong. The "government" is also a very broad term - "intelligence agencies" are very specific; a range of subjects assigned to the respective government categories for PRC and ROC. Now having one category for "Chinese intelligence agencies" is not advisable as PRC and ROC are rival states. A similar example is of

WP:NPOV to consider the ROC as one with what is commonly understood as "China" - Taiwan is a separate island and a very strong side of opinion asserts it as independent of mainland China. And it would be the same kind of bias to create a Category:Taiwanese intelligence agencies (thus a "Republic of China" is needed, as is a "People's Republic of China"). Such a generalized category is, thus, misleading and false in many ways. Shiva_eVolved 07:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Alternatively, we can create PRC and ROC sub-categories, but I consider it a waste, aside from the fact that again, it would be taking sides in the "China vs. Taiwan" debate. Shiva_eVolved 08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PRC and ROC are not just rival govts — ROC ruled China for years before PRC existed. The overarching point of my opposition is this is not a matter for speedy renaming — it should be taken to a full CFD to engage in these debates.

Snocrates 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom to avoid the ambiguity of something racial rather than governmental here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2008 (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 Category:Historical websites to Category:History websites. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical websites to Category:History websites

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current category is ambiguous -- are these old dead websites? Or websites about history? As it happens they're the latter, and we should rename to avoid the ambiguity and in conformity with most of the other items in Category:History publications. Lquilter (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Adjectival forms generally should be eschewed to avoid this sort of ambiguity, similar to the recent CFD for "Erotic(a) websites". This category is in serious need of population -- surely there are many other articles about such websites. I do have one concern about the parent
  cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Cgingold has exactly nailed a real problem and the Category:History maps is a perfect example. I've been thinking about this problem, too, and am concluding that X works or Works of X might be the right way to go. I posted some initial thoughts for discussion at Category talk:Publications. (My plan was to winnow down to some good choices and concerns before bringing it here.) --Lquilter (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished (literally, while you were posting your reply) creating and populating Category:History resources, with Category:Educational materials as one of the parents, and Category:History publications among the sub-cats. Take a look & let me know what you think. Cgingold (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right idea and good job. My only worry is that the term "resources" is functionally-defined. It kinda works for history but I'm not sure it would work in other areas. What do you think of "works"? --Lquilter (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Well, I think works works well in some contexts, and works works not so well in others. If you, um, see what I mean. (i.e. it's fine when it's paired with another word that supplies the necessary context to dispel the semantic ambiguity, such as "Works by author", etc.) Cgingold (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:21, 1 January 2008 (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

WP:CSD#C1. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Propose deletion There are no items in this category and it doesn't seem to have been used for a long time. IngsocV (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as empty category. (If it has been empty for at least four days, it can be
  speedily deleted.)Terraxos (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Populate if possible. I cannot believe there are no leisure centres in Cardiff which should not be in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 Category:Colleges in Canada's Territories to Category:Colleges in the territories of Canada. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Colleges in Canada's Territories to Category:Colleges in the territories of Canada

Nominator's rationale: "Territories" should not be capitalized. Proposed name places better emphasis than Category:Colleges in Canadian territories. In case you are wondering, these colleges are grouped together rather than split off into individual categories for each territory, because there is only one in each. –Pomte 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Terraxos (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Colleges in the northern territories of Canada (or Category:Colleges north of 60 in Canada ) 70.55.84.75 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Northern territories of Canada" is redundant as all the territories of Canada are in the north of the country.
  Snocrates 12:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2008 (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 merge to Category:State funerals. There is consensus to do something, either merging to "State funerals" or renaming to "Funerals." The latter doesn't make sense, though, because every article in the category is a state funeral. There is every reason to create a category called "Funerals," and making the State Funerals category a subcategory of that, but it doesn't require CfD to do that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Funerals of famous persons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I suppose "Famous persons" is a criterion we cannot deal with very well. Although I know of no such, I would think there are numerous precedent cases for deleting this one.

talk) 08:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Suggest rename category to "Famous Funerals" or even just "Funerals" Kransky (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have

talk) 11:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename to Category:Funerals. Their fame/notablity will be asseserted in their article. Lugnuts (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, preferably to Category:State Funerals which all these were (with capital F). Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ok, since it's there, lets do that. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:State funerals. Category:Funerals would be a hypothetical supercategory including both that category, and any notable funerals that were not state funerals... but I don't think there's any need for that just yet. Terraxos (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to Category:State funerals - this would preclude any other noteworthy funerals that were not state funerals.. Kransky (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cross that bridge if & when such articles appear. What would you do with the current cat? All the articles clearly belong in the existing other cat. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about Category:Funerals with a comment for all to read that this category concerns the funerals of particular people, and not articles associated with funerals generally. Kransky (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Funerals and let it grow organically to include subcats like state funerals, mass funerals, funeral masses, and whatever fits the bill. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Funerals. If we have a large number of articles, then this seems a reasonable category. After the rename, categories like Category:State funerals should become children of the renamed category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Funerals per Vegaswikian. Makes the most sense and establishes an easy-to-maintain basis for the future. Truthanado (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2008 (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 no consensus. Kbdank71 15:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People who killed their children to Category:People who murdered their children

Nominator's rationale: To match parent category naming (and it's other sub-cats) - IE "murder" instead of "kill". Lugnuts (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the existing list from Filicide and listify into separate article. The list would be manageable and could provide context. If the category is kept please rename it to something like "... in modern era" to exclude historical monarchs and nobles, for these filicide is usually not a defining category. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People who killed their own children, which puts added emphasis on that word. This category was renamed 5 months ago, at which time it was decided to leave it as a sub-category of Category:Murderers of children even though that was understood to be problematic, given that not all of the individuals in Category:People who killed their children were, in fact, convicted of murder. So I have just moved it to different parent cats, Category:Criminals and Category:Homicide; I'm not sure if it also belongs in one of the child-related categories. In addition, I've added Category:Murderers of children as a related category -- along with Category:Infanticide and Category:Honor killing. Cgingold (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose kill allows for killings found to be less than murder (e.g., manslaughter) and better fits the concept of a filicides. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2008 (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 no consensus/keep. I too, am unsure why we have alumni categories at all, but that's neither here nor there. If you look through Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States, you'll see that there are many "container" parent categories, such as Category:University of California alumni for Category:University of California, Berkeley alumni (and others), Category:State University of New York alumni for Category:State University of New York at Albany alumni (and others), Category:University of Maryland alumni for Category:University of Maryland Eastern Shore alumni (and others), etc, etc. Granted, there are also schools that do not have container categories such as the universities of North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin, which would lend credence to the merge arguments. This would be better served if all of the parent alumni categories were umbrella nominated to get a consensus on all of them and set precedent. Kbdank71 15:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:University of Nebraska alumni to Category:University of Nebraska-Lincoln alumni

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Category is redundant and is not precise enough (there are now several institutions with "University of Nebraska" in their name). – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 04:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining. (A protest vote over the existence of the alumni categories.)
  Snocrates 07:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge. Parallels all other such categories from that school.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if there are several institutions, should they not each have an alumni category? Alternatively reverse merge to provide one category covering all institutions. I am the wrong side of the Atlantic and know little of the matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom although I have some sympathy for Snocrates' position I don't think it'll carry this day. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, but not until the people in the "University of Nebraska alumni" category are checked to make sure that they're all alumni of the Lincoln campus. If anyone is found who's an alum of Omaha or Kearney but not Lincoln, create Category:University of Nebraska at Omaha alumni or Category:University of Nebraska at Kearney alumni as needed. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both and reorganise so that
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with strange signs on the title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nonsense category. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Criterion is totally vague. __

talk) 08:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - Let's not overlook the possibility that this just might be a long-lost subcategory of Category:Astrological signs! Cgingold (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Totally pointless, subjective and useless. --Kimon^talk 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and
  WP:DAFT'. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, unless this category has some use that I'm missing. Terraxos (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All the members are also members of category:Arabic letters. This was populated by Special:Contributions/80.178.32.200 but serves no purpose that I can see. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aside from this being a useless overcat, do we really want to get into a discussion of what a strange sign is? Truthanado (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My computer shows many of these as question marks. -
  talk) 18:04, 2 January 2008 (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 to Category:Philatelic organizations. Kbdank71 15:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Philatelic associations and societies to Category:Philately organizations (or alt. Category:Philatelic organizations)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Shorter more succinct name, uses standard "Subject organizations" format in keeping with most names in Category:Organizations by subject, and it is also a bit broader than "associations and societies"--for instance libraries and museums, which are currently in this category also, are not quite what one thinks of as "associations and societies", but there aren't enough at this point to justify a separate tree. Lquilter (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I originated the category, apparently(!), but I support the proposed name. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been posted at the WikiProject Philately talk page. —Lquilter (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: No one around philately ever calls an organisation, a "philately organisation", it would be a "philatelic organisation" if anything. At least please use the correct grammar; philately is the noun while philatelic is the adjective, so "Philatelic museum", "Philatelic society", Philatelic topic" are correct usages. For a wiki example the American Philatelic Society is not the American Philately Society! Beside that I am not so sure using the term organisation for philatelic societies is quite appropriate unless it is an umbrella organisation somewhat like the APS. ww2censor (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The adjectival form is sometimes confusing, but I'm not too concerned about that with this particular category. The problem that I'm more concerned with is "associations and societies" doesn't necessarily include, for instance, all the types of organizations -- e.g., libraries and museums are not typically considered associations and societies. We can create a supercategory Category:Philatelic organizations and put libraries & museums in that, along with the subcategory associations and societies, but I had thought perhaps one category would suffice. --Lquilter (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so why not agree to go with Category:Philatelic organizations as the parent category with Category:Philatelic societies as a subcategory for now and if necessary we can create Category:Philatelic associations as another subcategory if really necessary. If you will go with that I will support you. ww2censor (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. If this goes thru I'll ping you again to get you to help sort through and make sure that we got all the societies in the right category. --Lquilter (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message for Stan who may want to weigh in on this due to his long-time involvement in philatelic articles. ww2censor (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Philatelic organizations - I think that's the term I've seen most often in print and such, covers a wide variety of formal and informal groups. Stan (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Ok, I will support now so long as we use Category:Philatelic organizations and if we really need any subcategories we can make them later. Close as soon as you want. ww2censor (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - This gets my stamp of approval. Cgingold (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Philatelic organizations. 'Philatelic' is the standard adjective form used by stamp collectors. 'Organization' is inclusive Hmains (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to Category:Philatelic organizations and as well explained by Hmains. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2008 (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 no consensus. Kbdank71 15:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ceremonial heads of state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Without a working definition, this category is too hard to apply consistently. The duties and powers of heads of state vary quite a bit from country to country, and it's not as easy as classifying them as "ceremonial" and "not ceremonial". Contrast this with

Snocrates 00:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename to Category:Non-executive heads of state (with note) or Category:Heads of state who are not heads of government, or use "Presidents" if monarchs are to be excluded. All have some constitutional functions beyond the ceremonial, if these are very rarely excercised. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There isn't clear cut between executive and non-executive role and if Czech presidency is example how much rights the president executes depends quite a lot on the person and time. Information about this topic belongs to the article, category is unable to provide enough of context. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are either head of the government (ie executive) or you are not, and they don't invite you to the head of government conferences. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to 'Non-executive heads of state' per Johnbod. 'Ceremonial leader' is a potentially derogatory description, but it's obvious what this is meant to be used for. Terraxos (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nominator) I think either of Johnbod's proposed renames could work. It could cover those that are close to "purely ceremonial", like the President of Israel, but also include the heads of state in quasi-presidential systems that have substantial powers, like the President of France and the President of Russia.
  Snocrates 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nb The Presidents of France and Russia are the heads of government; they go to the summits. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the PMs are the heads of government. These presidents go to the summits not because they are the head of government, but because they oversee the government's foreign affairs policies. The PMs head the government in most domestic affairs only. That's why the system is "quasi-presidential". If the presidents were the head of government, then it would be a full "presidential" system, like the U.S. or a Latin American country.

Snocrates 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Well that's what De Gaulle's PM thought until he found out from the radio whilst shaving that the President had put the price of milk up, if you know the story. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - I do not like the term "ceremonial", which I agree to be demeaning, but we do need a category for these people. The scope of this and the Executive category can be defined in headnotes on the category pages. The Queen of Great Britain (and most other constitutional monarchs) have limited executive power, becasue a head of government governs the country for them. This also applies to the Presidents of Israel, Germany, and India, and to the Governors-General of Canada, Australia, etc (though they are technically deputies for the Queen. The presidents of France, and Russia, clearly have executive power, though they have a prime minister under them, are active politicians, not figurehead presidents with limited power. In Spain, where the office is usually translated into English as "Prime Minister", the president clearly belongs to the executive group. I think the test should be whether the President is actively politically or is above (or beyond) politics. Such people may occasionally attend summits, for example the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth attends Commonwealth summits, but she does not take an active part in the negotiations. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep It is not up to WP to rename the world to meet its own POV. Everywhere, this position is known as a 'ceremonial head of state'. See newspapers, books, TV, common language. Nowhere are these other terms, such as 'non-executive head of state', used These appear to be WP editors' inventions. Hmains (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not a term I am familiar with. In the UK we have a "constitutional monarch", but that doesn't work for Presidents. "ceremonial head of state" only gets 14,700 ghits, a rather low figure. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ceremonial is in the eye of the beholder, take Juan Carlos of Spain who has more than once acted more like an executive than in a purely ceremonial role. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2008 (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.