Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19

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 17:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdering doctors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, unless of course there is consensus to create Category:Murderers by occupation. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Categorization does not need to be an exercise in combinatorics. Dr. Submillimeter 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - criminals by non-criminal occupation is a pretty worthless scheme. And I have no doubt that if this category stands it will get hijacked full of doctors who perform abortions. Otto4711 14:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for now, possible rename. I have some hesitancy about casting this as a "criminals by non-criminal occupation" category. I haven't checked all the entries in this category, but for people such as
  Beverly Allitt, I think that it could make a useful "medical murderers" category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Definite keep - "doctors as an occupation have provided more serial killers than any other profession due to the unique nature of the job" is a concept met in each of these books: Sitpond, M. Addicted to murder. The true story of Dr Harold Shipman. London: Virgin; 2000.; Whittle, BC.; Ritchie, J. Prescription for murder. The true story of mass murderer Dr Harold Frederick Shipman. London: Warner; 2000.; Linedecker, CL.; Burt, BA. Nurses who kill. New York: Windsor; 1990.; Hickey, EW. Washington DC: Wadsworth; 1997. Serial murderers and their victims; p. 142. See also the first sentence of this page [1] --
  Hitler. The category is informative and encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malick78 (talk • contribs
  ) 15:03, 19 June 2007

• Comment - my remark about adding abortionists was not addressing the issue as vandalism but as POV. While being a vandalism target may not be a reason for deletion, being impermissibly POV or a POV magnet has certainly legitimately been raised in any number of previous CFDs. This category is not restricted to "serial killers" so your sources relating to the phenomenon of serial killers by profession aren't strongly relevant, unless you can show that all murdering doctors do so as a result of their profession. Dr. Crippen's medical degree didn't have anything to do with his murder. Robert George Clements, who is in the category, killed his wives, not his patients. If someone wants to make Category:Doctors who are also serial killers or the like then we can argue that. But this isn't that. Otto4711 15:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but might be ok with a more restricted version I think the category as-is is too broad. As Otto points out above there are a number of criminals who happened to be doctors but whose crimes had nothing to do with their practice of medicine. Thus as an indexing scheme it seems overly broad. That being said, I might be willing to consider a category that is specifically for doctors who either killed their patients and/or specifically used their medical knowledge to facilitate their crime. Dugwiki 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial intersection. Also, 2 of the 6 category members were never convicted, so this may be subjective criteria as well. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if renamed to
  WP:RSes. Carlossuarez46 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep if renamed to Category:Health workers who have murdered patients amending Carlos' suggestion, as nurses should be included. Johnbod 00:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good improvement; I concur. Carlossuarez46 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, perhpas as part of a professionals/practitioners antithetical to their profession tree... 70.55.86.40 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a criminal is a criminal regardless of occupation. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and reorganise The key thing is the breach of trust. Johnbod's proposal is a good attempt, but I think social carers who murder people in the residential home where they work would also belong to the same structure. And indeed nannies who kill the babies they are meant to be caring for. (There have been at least a couple of cases where British nannies have been tried in the US). Professionals who have killed those in their care.

--Peter cohen 10:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's a bit too broad - do you want police/prison officers there too? If they've killed a suspect/prisoner??Malick78 10:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Excessive intersection. Haddiscoe 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I really think that Category:Doctors who have murdered patients is excessive, mainly because it seems too focused on a very specific type of murder/victim relationship. we really do not need categories that go into this much detail, do we? I would still advocate deletion. (Also, such a category could potentially attract articles on doctors convicted of malpractice that results in death and doctors who play a role in legally or illegally administering euthanasia.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be OK with Category:Doctors who have murdered patients idea, since in that case the occupation is relevant. I'm wondering if Jack Kevorkian would be included or not ... is it murder if it's by consent? -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We don't categorize murderers by occupation. Furthermore, the name is horribly worded. "Murdering" could be adjective or verb. Doczilla 08:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we don't categorize murderers by occupation, why do we categorize suicides by occupation at Category:Suicides? Here, you will even find 'Doctors who committed suicide'. Is there a lucid and well-thought-out rationale for why suicides can be sorted by occupation and murderers can't? Malick78 09:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No one has yet nominated all of the suicides by occupation categories for deletion. It is not clear that they are useful for organization, either. The fact that they exist does not justify this category. Dr. Submillimeter 20:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the notion of repurposing this category for caregivers who kill those in their care (or the more restrictive doctors who kill patients) strikes me as POV pushing. Otto4711 18:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? If the
  British Medical Journal can publish an article called Serial homicide by doctors: Shipman in perspective, then why can't we think up a category to include those mentioned? The BMJ must have thought it worthwhile and scholarly, and I would humbly agree with them.Malick78 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep & merge The Shipman enquiry found that Shipman was able to carry on killing because it unthinkable that murder could happen at a doctor's hands. This category obviously shows that he wasn't unique. However, Arnfinn Nesset, Jeffrey R. MacDonald & the lists at William Palmer (murderer) could be merged into this category Ephebi 16:56, 25 June 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 17:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Hip hop record producers to Category:Record producers

Nominator's rationale: Merge - this is the only by-genre sub-category of the parent. Because there is no limitation on the style or genre of music a producer might produce, prolific producers could end up with multiple clutterful categories on their articles, which problem could be exacerbated greatly should someone decide to subdivide this category to reflect the large number of hip hop genres and styles for which we already have categories and articles (about 70 so far). Otto4711 13:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - agreed; a producer is not limited by a class of music. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The only reason this is the only genre sub-category of Category:Record producers is because its the only one that has been created so far. The technical approach and method of producing hip hop is very different from producing other styles of music. I strongly disagree that any producer could produce any style of music, because professionally this is not the case at all. Hip hop production is very specialized which is probably the reason the category was created, to find producers with a similar approach and method, not only because of musical style. I think there is room for broad genre categorization of Category:Record producers as a very useful resource for that reason. Hip hop producers use certain methods while rock producers use different methods than heavy metal and classical producers. It's a fallacious slippery slope argument to say it should be deleted because at some point in the future over-categorization might be an issue. So far there is no over-categorization, so it's not an issue. dissolve^talk 01:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hip hop production does not support the notion that hip hop music is so radically different in its production process that those who produce it require independent categorization. That article (which by the way cites no sources) states that hip hop production "utilizes drum machines, turntables, synthesizers, hardware and software sequencers, and live instrumentation." None of which is by definition exclusive to hip hop and none of which can't be used to produce non-hip hop music. Record producer makes no differentiation between producers of hip hop and producers of other styles of music. That article states that the role of a record producer is, among other things, "controlling the recording sessions, coaching and guiding the musicians, organizing and scheduling production budget and resources, and supervising the recording, mixing and mastering processes." I find nothing that indicates that any of these functions are exclusive to any genre of music or that the process of producing hip hop involves performing any of these functions in a way that's notably different from any other genre of music. There is no support for the argument offered here to keep the category scheme, and it is reasonable to stop a bad categorization scheme early in its development instead of waiting until it's entrenched. Otto4711 12:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hip hop production is a completely uncited article, while the Record producer article is dubiosly cited by sources that have no bearing in the industry and no inline citations. The quote you point out is exactly the difference though, in general in music production a producer is "controlling the recording sessions, coaching and guiding the musicians, organizing and scheduling production budget and resources, and supervising the recording, mixing and mastering processes", the difference in hip hop production is that the producer is primarily responsible for creating the music using techniques not generally used in other styles of music, primarily manipulating digital samples from vinyl LPs. A huge difference and a paradigm shift. I suppose the broader question is, if you want an encyclopedia where people with expertise and professional experience in a field are contributing to and categorizing articles, or prefer editors who don't have knowledge and expertise doing so. dissolve^talk 16:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Creating the music using techniques not generally used in other styles of music, primarily manipulating digital samples from vinyl LPs" strikes me as another way of saying "supervising the recording, mixing and mastering processes." The fact that different techniques may or may not be used in producing different styles of music does not mean that the people who use those techniques can't and don't use other techniques, that those people can't or don't produce other kinds of music, that people who produce other sorts of music don't or can't use those techniques or that the techniques justify a separate categorization scheme. If the difference between a hip hop producer and a non-hip hop producer boils down to the hip hip producer manipulates samples off vinyl LPs then this category is really
  original research that we don't want here. If there are no reliable sources that attest to the notion that there is a "huge difference" and a "paradigm shift" involved in producing hip hop music that makes it so radically different from producing every other kind of music then the category must be removed. Otto4711 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• My statements are hardly original research; if I were to rewrite one of those shodilly written articles that you cite, I would cite Schloss, Joseph (2004) Making Beats: The Art of Sample-Based Hip Hop. Wesleyan University Press, Richard, Burgess (2005) The Art Of Music Production. Omnibus Press, and Kettlewell, Ben (2002) Electronic Music Pioneers. ArtistPro. to explain the history of music production and the influence of hip hop production over the last 30 years. I defer the decision to those that have the time to admin wikipedia and are more knowledgeable of the procedures and guidelines for categorization than I do. dissolve^talk 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not suggesting that hip hop producers don't do some things differently from producers of other genres. I'm sure they do. But differences in technique or equipment doesn't change the fact that at the core hip hop producers are still producers. They may spend more time on certain aspects of the production than other producers, may use different techniques or equipment, but they're still producers. The reasons offered for the separate category scheme are nothing but semantic quibbling. Otto4711 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, possibly rename the Hip hop genre is one of the few music genres that came of age alongside the internet and MTV. Older established genres have had to re-adapt to new media and, I believe, less prevalent on WP. Agree with Dissolve's insights that other sub-categories like "classical music producers" will follow. Possibly rename to
  Benjiboi 09:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm not seeing what the shortness of the existence of the genre or the rise of the internet or MTV have to do with the category scheme. Can you cite sources that indicate that the production process of hip hop music has been as affected by the rise of MTV and the internet as you indicate, and that the rise of the internet and MTV did not affect the production of other genres of music in similar fashion? Otto4711 12:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop , MTV (music videos et al) and the internet grew up together and became mainstream. The venues for classical music tend to be unique unto the genre and the production methods emulate that genres traditions, same with country music or punk, or gospel all of which have notable music producers who specialize in their fields. Likewise hip-hop was nurtured and spread worldwide thanks to television and now with music producers able to be anywhere in the world and use a laptop to produce music as well as collaborate online with plenty of notable producers worldwide. Sources, if needed, can be found in recent 25th anniversary books and compilation liner notes as well as related articles. I think it's harder to prove "that the rise of the internet and MTV did not affect the production of other genres of music in similar fashion?" as I believe every emerging music genre influences each other and indeed there are many concept albums like "disco country" that purposely cross-pollinate so did hip-hop influence other genres of music or did the rise of the internet and MTV influence other genres of music? I think both did and continue to do so.

Benjiboi 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, but none of this demonstrates in any way that the production of hip hop is so completely distinct from the production of any other genre of music that separate categorization is necessary. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Otto4711 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't realize I needed to prove that. I think, for me at least, I look at who is using this information and think would having every music producer in one category be most helpful without subcategories? No. I think subcategories are generally helpful and I would think that just as the music industry is sorted by music genres in radio, award categories and, dare I suggest lifestyles, that subcategories as the the main category grows makes sense and hip hop being as prevalent on WP as it is is fine with it's very own subcategory. :::::To answer part of your question there are very few producers who excel at producing _any_ genre of music and very few that I've heard of who are hired to do so. Country and bluegrass are quite different from hip hop, punk, salsa and reggae. All have their commonalities but very few if any producers are adept to produce quality music across the spectrum.

Benjiboi 05:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, per Benjiboi's explanation. – Freechild (BoomCha) 18:58, 23 June 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 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queen (band) record producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper person by project

overcategorization. A prolific producer could end up with dozens of such categories on his or her article, leading to impenetrable category clutter. Otto4711 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is senseless over-categorization. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casperonline 21:41, 21 June 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, OCAT --Kbdank71 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Wagnerites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wagnerites

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing people based on their supposed "attachment" to or disdain of

overcategorization by opinion or belief. Otto4711 13:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - I would like to go on the record as being Anti-Category:Anti-Wagnerites. This is not a practical way to categorize people. People will have many personal likes and dislikes, and categories for all of these things are neither useful for practical. (However, singling out Richard Wagner seems funny.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support Category: 19th century Anti-Wagnerites, when it was a real issue (and the opposite category). Johnbod 17:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThe pro/anti Wagner division was a major feature of 19th century and early twentieth century music.
  Also Sprach Zarathustra, there are several allusions to Wagner. Perhaps there should be a clarification on how the category be used, but into the 20th century Adolf Hitler's identification with Wagner has had an impact on the performance of Wagner's music in Israel.--Peter cohen 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename The "anti-" category is small & focused; all C19. The "pro-" category is large and sprawling, with Phil Spector, many modern singers etc, and of course Adolf Hitler and Bryan Magee. The categories should be renamed to Category: 19th century Anti-Wagnerites,and Category: 19th century Wagnerites. If not already there, many of the rest of the Wagnerites could go to Category: Wagnerian tenors, Wagner family etc (if these are allowed, which singer ones should be as they are distinct types. Johnbod 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there is an issue how the category is implemented.nI'm not sure whether the cut off occurs exactly at the end of the century. Certainly by the time serialism was established and the Rite of Spring had been premiered, the debate on Wagner was not the major issue in art music but did the Wagner debate continue a few years into the 20th century? --Peter cohen 09:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it did, but I think anyone who was not on board by 1900 had rather missed the bus. Johnbod 10:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • There may also be mileage in a category Wagnerians for writers about him and for performers and producers such as Hans Knappertsbusch, Lauritz Melchior, Karl Ridderbusch and Wieland Wagner whose output was heavilly weighted towards Wagner. --Peter cohen 12:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is not a way to categorize a person's life; it is meaningless in the scheme of things. It is over-categorization. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wagnerites v anti-Wagnerites is the shorthand classification to determine the parties on either side of the War of the Romantics.--Peter cohen 12:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at least restrict chronologically. Non-defining for modern people. Haddiscoe 14:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- It seems just as important as a person's nationality, religion, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJMitch (talk • contribs) 13:21, 21 June 2007
• Delete both per nom and per
  WP:OCAT#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To quote from which: "Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, which can be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists)." - All the people in the "anti-" category could certainly be called activists in the War of the Romantics, and the pro- category should be restricted to these, as outlined above. Johnbod 21:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice to redoing these as pro- and anti- activists in the war of the romantics; but Wagner was but one rallying point to be pro- or anti-. Having a pro- or anti- about a single issue is problematic enough without putting this fine a point on it, for a probably more notable debate: we have Category:Pro-choice activists and Category:Pro-life activists, we don't further divvy them up on how they feel about teen parental notification, or what they think of stem cell research, etc.... Carlossuarez46 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The core debate there is pro- and anti- abortion but the standard description is about support for choice or life. The pro- or anti-Wagner description plays exactly the same role in characterising the sides of the War of the Romantics as choice and life do in the abortion debate. --Peter cohen 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If these are the terms used, then as renamed/qualified by Johnbod (19th century) so we get rid of Hitler, Phil Spector and others not involved in the War of the Romantics...I still would rather see something like Category:War of the Romantics: Wagnerite and Category:War of the Romantics: Anti-Wagnerite perhaps. Carlossuarez46 00:45, 23 June 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 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nightwish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous

overcategorization of a band, not needed for the material in light of the extensive interlinking and exhaustive navtemplate. Otto4711 13:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ditto. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:55, 20 June 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 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historically Danish-American universities and colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Historically Dutch-American universities and colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Historically German-American universities and colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Historically Irish-American universities and colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Historically Norwegian-American universities and colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Historically Swedish-American universities and colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - These terms are not in common use outside of Wikipedia, as a search with Google will reveal. Therefore, they may be considered

original research. Therefore, the categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - Additionally, note that categories exist for colleges and universities affiliated with churches (e.g. Category:Roman Catholic universities and colleges in the United States, Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the United Methodist Church). These church affiliation categories are more useful, as church affiliations should be more clear-cut. Dr. Submillimeter 12:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List material at most. Haddiscoe 12:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I note that identical categories for African-American and women are not listed; while I can make an argument as to how they're different, I am not sure that the same could not be said for any of the nominated cats. Carlossuarez46 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The terms "historically African-American college" and "women's college" are in use outside of Wikipedia, which is why I hesitate to list them. Dr. Submillimeter 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed and for that reason there's sufficient distinction to:
    • Delete these. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a category without any purpose today. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's hard to trust these categories, which seem rather subjective, and may have too many marginal cases added to them. Casperonline 21:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This would be an interesting categorization if these terms were used by the institutions at hand; however, after reviewing a lot of their websites I cannot find any suitable citations that would distinguish these colleges as their descriptors would. Therefore, these categories are largely
  original research and need to be eliminated. – Freechild (BoomCha) 18:56, 23 June 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 all. the wub "?!" 16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former political parties in Croatia to Category:Defunct political parties in Croatia

Propose renaming Category:Former political parties in Germany to Category:Defunct political parties in Germany

Propose renaming Category:Former political parties in the Netherlands to Category:Defunct political parties in the Netherlands

Propose renaming Category:Former political parties in Turkey to Category:Defunct political parties in Turkey

Nominator's rationale: The term "defunct" is used in the name of the parent category, Category:Defunct political parties. These categories should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 12:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, to match the parent category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 21 June 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 all. the wub "?!" 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic political parties in Australia to Category:Defunct political parties in Australia

Propose renaming Category:Swedish historical political parties to Category:Defunct political parties in Sweden

Propose renaming Category:Historical political parties of the United States to Category:Defunct political parties in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category is for political parties that no longer exist. The term "defunct" would be more accurate than "historic" in this case. Moreover, the rename proposed above would match the category's name with its parent's name, Category:Defunct political parties. Dr. Submillimeter 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom, to match parent category. It's never been clear to me how long ago something had to happen to be considered historical. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --Bduke 07:05, 22 June 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 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic houses in Omaha to Category:Houses in Omaha

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historic" is subjective and open to interpretation. This could refer to buildings that are a set age (50, 100, or 500 years old), buildings on a list of "historic" places, buildings where historic events occurred, or buildings that no longer exist. Therefore, the category should be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 11:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename I did not know there was a naming convention when I created the category; make it so. – Freechild (BoomCha) 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - the category as renmed would include every NN modern house there. Yes it is a subjective category, but that cannot be helped. Inappropriate entries can be removed by editing if necessary. Peterkingiron 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Part of the rationale here is that only houses that could be considered "historical" in some sense of the word (including modern houses that are architecturally important) would have Wikipedia articles anyway. Therefore, using "historical" is redundant just like using "notable" or "famous" is redundant. Dr. Submillimeter 07:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP articles should only be for notable buildings, categories should indicate why they are notable.--Red Deathy 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why words like historic and notable are not needed in categories. Removing non-notable articles is the job of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, convention in this area, and general principles of good categorisation. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Note that the parent categories are Category:Houses in Nebraska and Category:Houses in the United States by state. Omaha is one of the few locations where "historic houses" is used. Dr. Submillimeter 16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and convention. Vegaswikian 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like just about all of these houses are listed as Omaha Landmarks by the City of Omaha's Landmarks Heritage Preservation Commission. Some are also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Since "historic homes" is a bit vague, but "Omaha Landmarks" is specific, I suggest renaming this category Category:Omaha Landmarks. That way, other landmarks other than houses could go into this category too. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not be in favor of the route Elkman suggests. It would add a number of locations that are not houses, and in Omaha there are a number of houses that are listed on the NRHP, but not Omaha Landmarks. See
    Chicago Landmark, a similar designation, there has been considerable conversation in favor of broadening the list and not leaving it as narrow as only Chicago landmarks. So making Elkman's suggested move would make the list too broad in one sense, and too narrow in another. There are plenty more articles to be written about houses in Omaha, and I am writing them; honestly, I will be discouraged if the houses were to get lost in the shuffle within a larger category. There are several categories of houses by city; let's leave it that way. – Freechild (BoomCha) 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • But these houses should be in the houses hierarchy just the same as houses in any other part of the world. Heritage register categories are a separate hierarchy. Casperonline 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you, and would not be against a separate category for Omaha Landmark - however, that is not Elkman's proposal. Rather, it is to eliminate any category for houses in Omaha altogether - and according to your logic, Casperonline, that should exist because there is a precedent of categories for houses by city around the world. Again, Chicago is a fine example: Category:Houses in Chicago. – Freechild (BoomCha) 21:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - It would be possible to keep this category for houses but to also have a Category:Omaha Landmarks and possibly a category for the places that are in the National Register of Historic Places. Dr. Submillimeter 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The correct form would be Category:Landmarks in Omaha. Wimstead 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response - No, Wimstead, I'm afraid you're wrong. It would be Category:Landmarks in Omaha, Nebraska, and it already exists. What we're talking about is a specific category that recognizes the specific designation granted by the City of Omaha entitled "Omaha Landmark". And Dr. Submillimeter, there is already a Category:Registered Historic Places in Omaha covering the NRHP in Omaha. So the issue Elkman raised really has nothing to do with either of these two categories, but whether everything should be lumped into a larger category that dilutes the effectiveness of an embedded category similar to what Category:Houses in Omaha could be. – Freechild (BoomCha) 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per sensible convention. Casperonline 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Abberley2 01:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention. Ravenhurst 10:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename More use could be made of
  Æthelwold 15:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Æthelwold, doesn't that category title simply mirror the issue addressed in this CfD? – Freechild (BoomCha) 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Historic house museum" is a technical term used by the museum industry. Hence, the category for historic house museums does not suffer from the same problem as this category. Dr. Submillimeter 17:40, 24 June 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 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic houses in Scotland to Category:Houses in Scotland

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historic" is subjective and open to interpretation. This could refer to buildings that are a set age (50, 100, or 500 years old), buildings on a list of "historic" places, buildings where historic events occurred, or buildings that no longer exist. Therefore, the category should be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 11:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - the propsoed name is stupid as it would include every NN terraced house, and be much too broad. The category comprises many hisotrically important houses, many of them open to the public as historic monuments. The boundaries of the category may be vague, but that can be dealt with by editing out inappropriate entries. Peterkingiron 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Part of the rationale here is that only houses that could be considered "historical" in some sense of the word (including modern houses that are architecturally important) would have Wikipedia articles anyway. Therefore, using "historical" is redundant just like using "notable" or "famous" is redundant. (Also, have you read my comments on how many buildings can be arbitrarily identified as "historic"? You and I and everyone else probably have different viewpoints on this.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the "listed houses" category two noms down. One can be pretty confident that the many thousand listed buildings in Scotland include all of these. Johnbod 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These categories are part of a global system, which should not be over-ridden by a local quirk like listing. Haddiscoe 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "global" system only actually operates for the UK,Canada & USA, and includes the listed buildings categories. Why historic houses in other countries are not included I have no idea. Hw will changing to "houses" help? Johnbod 16:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The category for houses by location is Category:Houses by country. The category for houses in the United States and Canada is Category:Houses in the United States and Category:Houses in Canada. These categories contain 19th century houses just like Category:Historic houses in Scotland. Categories for most other countries also just begin with "houses". Why is "historic" needed for the houses in the United Kingdom when only "historic" houses would be listed in Wikipedia anyway and when the term is not needed for all other countries? Dr. Submillimeter 16:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many other kinds of house may have articles, especially those by notable modern architects, and those that are famous for some recent event. Frank Gehry's Venice Beach House does not have an article yet, but it could well have one, like many British ones by Richard Rogers. I don't think this has been thought through. Johnbod 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well then, how old does a house need to be to be considered "historic"? I have seen the BBC refer to post-WWII
  brutalist architecture as "historic", and Centre Point, which was built in the 1960s, could also be called "historic" because it was London's first skyscraper. What is the objective dividing line between "historic" and "modern"? Dr. Submillimeter 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wherever it is Gehry's beach house is on the wrong side of it. Johnbod 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP articles should only be for notable buildings, categories should indicate why they are notable.--Red Deathy 07:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why words like historic and notable are not needed in categories. Removing non-notable articles is the job of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, convention in this area, and general principles of good categorisation. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and convention. Vegaswikian 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I've been thinking of nominating all of these UK categories for months. "Historic house" is the normal term in the UK for the main sense which makes British houses notable, ie the country houses that are (often) open to the public, but that's probably not a good enough reason not to use the same terminology as is used for the rest of the world. It also makes these categories fit better into the visitor attractions categories, but on the other hand there are so many articles about houses that are not open to the public, that they should really be placed in the local visitor attractions one by one as appropriate. Wimstead 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per sensible convention. Casperonline 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Abberley2 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention. Ravenhurst 10:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename
  Æthelwold 15:59, 22 June 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 16:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic houses in Wales to Category:Houses in Wales

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historic" is subjective and open to interpretation. This could refer to buildings that are a set age (50, 100, or 500 years old), buildings on a list of "historic" places, buildings where historic events occurred, or buildings that no longer exist. Therefore, the category should be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 11:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - the propsoed name is stupid as it would include every NN terraced house in the valleys, and be much too broad. The category comprises many hisotrically important houses, many of them open to the public as historic monuments. The boundaries of the category may be vague, but that can be dealt with by editing out inappropriate entries. Peterkingiron 22:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Part of the rationale here is that only houses that could be considered "historical" in some sense of the word (including modern houses that are architecturally important) would have Wikipedia articles anyway. Therefore, using "historical" is redundant just like using "notable" or "famous" is redundant. (Also, have you read my comments on how many buildings can be arbitrarily identified as "historic"? You and I and everyone else probably have different viewpoints on this.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to the listed buildings category, since all of these will be listed. This is a half-thought-out set of nominations that does not seem to have considered wider category schemes, or suitable alternatives. Johnbod 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, most other categories identifying people or locations as "historic" were renamed or merged a long time ago. Dr. Submillimeter 07:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just not true; many countries have equivalents, notably the enormous Category:National Register of Historic Places in the US. See also Category:Heritage registers, with Monument historique, the 600-odd articles under Category:Historic districts in the United States and so on. I don't see any of thse being nominated. Johnbod 11:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Category:National Register of Historic Places, Category:Heritage registers, and Category:Historic districts in the United States do not simply use the term "historic" to describe the buildings and locations. Instead, the buildings are listed in historic registers. "Historic" is a subjective inclusion criterion, but being listed in a historic register is an objective inclusion criterion. The equivalent Wales category for registered buildings is Category:Listed buildings in Wales. Category:Historic houses in Wales, however, does not use the registration as an objective inclusion criterion but instead uses subjective judgments about its "historic" value as its inclusion criterion. Dr. Submillimeter 13:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These categories are part of a global system, which should not be over-ridden by a local quirk like listing. Haddiscoe 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP articles should only be for notable buildings, categories should indicate why they are notable.--Red Deathy 07:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why words like historic and notable are not needed in categories. Removing non-notable articles is the job of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, convention in this area, and general principles of good categorisation. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and convention. Vegaswikian 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename See my comments on the Scottish category. Wimstead 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per sensible convention. Casperonline 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Abberley2 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention. Ravenhurst 10:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename
  Æthelwold 16:00, 22 June 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 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Listed historic houses in Scotland to Category:Listed houses in Scotland

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historic" is subjective and open to interpretation. This could refer to buildings that are a set age (50, 100, or 500 years old), buildings on a list of "historic" places, buildings where historic events occurred, or buildings that no longer exist. However, I suggest keeping the term "listed", as this indicates that the buildings are in a government list of historical or culturally siginificant locations. Dr. Submillimeter 11:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question is "listed" alone unambiguous in Scottish usage? Carlossuarez46 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Answer Yes, see Listed building; this is a specific legal status. Whether "house" is unambiguous I'm not sure. Buildings build as a single domestic unit may now be offices, or converted into apartments. Or mills or churches may now be lived in. Johnbod 17:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the answer. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since these buildings are listed in a Grade or Category based on the country, does the type of structure become a defining characteristic? I wonder if the parent like Category:Category A listed buildings is sufficient? If not, then maybe a list would be a better choice then having multiple categories by type of building. Bottom line, do we really need the sub cats? Vegaswikian 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Historic houses in Scotland - This category has only one item in it which will fit well inot that category. Listed buildings is in fact liable to be a very large category, as there are thousands of listed builings. Peterkingiron 23:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is part of a large hierarchy; the "historic houses" two up should be merged here. That also is part of a hierarchy, which has only partly been nominated. Really all a set of categories should be addressed together. Johnbod 23:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This hierarchy only exists for the United Kingdom. Otherwise, few buildings are classified as "historic". Dr. Submillimeter 11:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just not true; many countries have equivalents, notably the enormous Category:National Register of Historic Places in the US. See also Category:Heritage registers, with Monument historique, the 600-odd articles under Category:Historic districts in the United States and so on. I don't see any of thse being nominated. Johnbod 11:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Sorry, I became confused. (For a moment, I thought that this was the discussion on a "historic houses" category). I agree that this is part of a hierarchy under Category:Listed buildings. However, the word "historic" is redundant and should be removed. Surely, any building which is listed can already be considered "historic", even if it represents a period from only 30 years ago? Dr. Submillimeter 12:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP articles should only be for notable buildings, categories should indicate why they are notable.--Red Deathy 07:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why words like historic and notable are not needed in categories. Removing non-notable articles is the job of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, convention in this area, and general principles of good categorisation. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename removing pointless subjective term. Casperonline 21:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Abberley2 01:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Ravenhurst 10:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename
  Æthelwold 16:00, 22 June 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 16:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings in Northern Ireland to Category:Buildings and structures in Northern Ireland

Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings in Belfast to Category:Buildings and structures in Belfast

Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings in County Antrim to Category:Buildings and structures in County Antrim

Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings in County Down to Category:Buildings and structures in County Down

Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings in County Fermanagh to Category:Buildings and structures in County Fermanagh

Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings in County Londonderry to Category:Buildings and structures in County Londonderry

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The term "historic" is subjective and open to interpretation. This could refer to buildings that are a set age (50, 100, or 500 years old), buildings on a list of "historic" places, buildings where historic events occurred, or buildings that no longer exist. Therefore, the categories should be merged as suggested. Dr. Submillimeter 11:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is slightly problematic - some buildings are notable for the historic value, I suppose the example would be the original Holyrood in Sctoland versus the new building - the new building has modern architectuiral merit, and should be known for that, but Historic buildings, as I'd understand it (ones notable for representing some past style or some significant purpose) do seem to be different. I agree perhaps a different tighter name (if one can be thought of) but i think we should maintain something like that distinction.--Red Deathy 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would you like my explanation as to why the Earl's Court tube station is "historic"? For that matter, would you like the explanation of why the house in Ealing that I live in is "historic"? (The house is over 100 years old. If it were in Hawaii, Montana, or Arizona, it would be in the National Register of Historic Places. I am sure it would receive similar treatment in Western Canada and Australia.) This really depends on the point-of-view of the individual. Using "listed" or "house museum", however, really does distinguish the "significant" homes from the "ordinary" homes. Dr. Submillimeter 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per nom; "historic" is subjective and ambiguous. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the propsoed merge category is likely to contain buildings that are notable for reasons other than being historic. The boundaries of the category may be vague, but that can be dealt with by editing out inappropriate entries. Peterkingiron 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It could be argued that buildings built less than 50 years ago are indeed "historic". See, for example, Centre Point, which is "historic" as the first skyscraper in London despite being built in the 1960s. Dr. Submillimeter 07:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to the listed buildings category, since all of these will be listed. This is a half-thought-out set of nominations that does not seem to have considered wider category schemes, or suitable alternatives. Johnbod 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It has been commonplace to merge "historical" categories for people, buildings, and other categories simply because the term "historical" suffers from interpretation problems. These UK categories are an anomaly in that regard. Dr. Submillimeter 07:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just not true; many countries have equivalents, notably the enormous Category:National Register of Historic Places in the US. See also Category:Heritage registers, with Monument historique, the 600-odd articles under Category:Historic districts in the United States and so on. I don't see any of thse being nominated. Johnbod 11:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Category:National Register of Historic Places, Category:Heritage registers, and Category:Historic districts in the United States do not simply use the term "historic" to describe the buildings and locations. Instead, the buildings are listed in historic registers. "Historic" is a subjective inclusion criterion, but being listed in a historic register is an objective inclusion criterion. The equivalent Northern Ireland category for registered buildings is Category:Listed buildings in Northern Ireland. Category:Historic houses in Wales, however, does not use the registration as an objective inclusion criterion but instead uses subjective judgments about its "historic" value as its inclusion criterion. Dr. Submillimeter 13:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP articles should only be for notable buildings, categories should indicate why they are notable.--Red Deathy 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why words like historic and notable are not needed in categories. Removing non-notable articles is the job of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, convention in this area, and general principles of good categorisation. Haddiscoe 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Vegaswikian 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. There are more of these about. Wimstead 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, given the clarification that buildings on historic registers go in "Listed" categories or equivalent, which seems to address the only substantive objection. Xtifr _tälk 20:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Casperonline 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Abberley2 01:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all All the articles are about buildings with a claim to be historic. Ravenhurst 10:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.
  Æthelwold 16:01, 22 June 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 to Category:Former United States Executive Departments --Kbdank71 16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic United States Executive Departments to Category:Defunct United States Executive Departments

Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category is for executive departments that no longer exist. The term "defunct" would make more sense than "historic" here. (Also, the capitalization seems unusual, although the main article (

United States Federal Executive Departments) capitalizes the first letter of every word. Maybe some renames are needed?) Dr. Submillimeter 11:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename either "Defunct" or "Former" works for me. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further reflection Category:Former United States Executive Departments seems better than defunct ones, also provides consistency to the categories below. Carlossuarez46 17:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "Defunct" seems like it would be more appropriate for an organization, although "former" is still better than "historic". Dr. Submillimeter 08:57, 22 June 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 16:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic United States Executive Cabinet positions to Category:Former United States Executive Cabinet positions

Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category is for cabinet positions that no longer exist. The term "former" would make more sense than "historic" for this category. Dr. Submillimeter 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 21 June 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 16:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic Mexican Executive Cabinet positions to Category:Former Mexican Executive Cabinet positions

Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category is for cabinet positions that no longer exist. The term "former" would make more sense than "historic" for this category. Dr. Submillimeter 11:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Ravenhurst 10:09, 22 June 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 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chicago writers to Category:Writers from Chicago

Nominator's rationale: Rename: Going to be cleaning up the Category:People from Chicago by sorting them. I think this category name looks better, and sounds better as a name. Want to get this category fixed before I begin to add a lot more people into it. Kranar drogin 11:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Illinois writers. Similar to previously deleted categories for footballers by city in England. This is overcategorization. Otto4711 14:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and rename per nom, just as we upmerged Category:New York rappers but kept Category:New York musicians. I would support upmerging a Category:Poets from Chicago, but Category:Writers from Chicago is worth keeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
• Rename per nom.
  tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename: Per nom, this would be overcategorization if Chicago wasn't home to so many writers, to avoid congesting Category:Illinois writers it is smart to have subcats if they are going to be significantly populated, makes things easier to navigate. IvoShandor 19:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge or keep (no preference; I just mildly oppose the suggested rename). I just checked Category:American writers by state, and no other state has any by-city subcategories, so upmerging to Category:Illinois writers is not unreasonable. On the other hand, checking Category:American musicians by state, I find that there are a few by-city subcategories (six or seven, I think), with most being named "City musicians". That's not an oustanding precedent or anything, but I haven't found anything better, so I would tend to argue to keep the current name if we keep the category. It's also consistent with all the by-state writers. I think switching from "Illinois writers" to "Writers from Chicago" as you descend the tree is a bit confusing. But I'm willing to listen to counterarguments. Xtifr _tälk 11:25, 20 June 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging with Category:Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks as the latter is not at all oversized, and subcategorizing them by airplane seems not all that useful. >Radiant< 11:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the 9/11 attacks took place in four fronts. This specifically categorizes people who died in Shanksville.
• Keep Nothing is gained by not subcategorizing. Ravenhurst 10:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:08, 25 June 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 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chicago baseball players to Category:Baseball players from Chicago

Nominator's rationale: Rename: Going to be cleaning up the Category:People from Chicago by sorting them. I think this category name looks better, and sounds better as a name. Want to get this category fixed before I begin to add a lot more people into it. Kranar drogin 11:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial

Bencherlite 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Neither birth nor from is redundant with by team. From is essentially where you were raised. It is no more redundant with by team than birth is.

tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment:May I suggest instead making it "Athletes from Chicago", then we can put all athletes in it instead? If you can have actors, etc, should be able to do that, correct?--Kranar drogin 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - similar to the previously deleted categories for footballers by British city. Overcategorization. Otto4711 14:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Otto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Gotta say I agree here. A category like this really has no use. IvoShandor 19:44, 19 June 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 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cat songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete a bunch of songs with "cat" in the title, seems to be an indiscriminate bunch of songs that merely share a word in their title. Not defining. Carlossuarez46 05:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete - These are unrelated songs with a shared name, a form of
    overcategorization. The songs are from different genres and have different themes. Some of these songs are not even remotely about cats (such as Cat's in the Cradle). Dr. Submillimeter 08:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (BTW, I initially thought that this must be a category for the songs of Mr Stevens). -14:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Casperonline 21:47, 21 June 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/merge/rename per nomination --Kbdank71 16:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hip hop record producers by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:American hip hop producers
Category:Botswanan hip hop producers
Category:South African hip hop producers

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this is the only by genre subdivision of Category:Record producers by nationality. Given that there are no limitations on the style or genre of music that a producer can produce, starting this sort of categorization scheme could lead to huge numbers of categories on producer articles, a problem which could be exacerbated if someone decides to break down this category by the various genres of hip hop, for which we currently have ten subcategories and 60 articles identifying styles. As part of this nomination, suggest merging the three subcats to their national category in Category:Record producers by nationality. Otto4711 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, that's:
  • Category:American hip hop producers to Category:American record producers,
  • Category:Botswanan hip hop producers to Category:Botswanan record producers and
  • Category:South African hip hop producers to Category:South African record producers, right? Xtifr _tälk 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct. Otto4711 04:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, delete the parent and merge/redirect the three subcategories, per nom. It's not quite the same as
  WP:OCAT#Performers by performance but it's definitely a similar issue with similar problems. Most producers have probably worked in at least a few different (possibly related) genres, while established, experienced producers have probably worked in a few dozens. Obvious potential for extreme category clutter. Xtifr _tälk 11:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete and merge. I'm the editor most resposible for populating Category:Record producers by nationality. I agree that subcategorizing the hip hop category by nationality is a bit redundant. I would think that if an article is in American record producers and in Hip hop record producers, that would get the needed info across well enough. dissolve^talk 01:05, 23 June 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 to Category:Vatican City nobility --Kbdank71 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vatican nobility to Category:Vatican City nobility

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure that we need more then the lists. Is this really a defining category? With only one list at this time, is this likely to be expanded to the extent that a category is needed? Vegaswikian 02:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Rename to the more commonly used title for the city state. Vegaswikian 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Vatican noble titles 132.205.44.134 03:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepRename per revised nom changed {part of larger category scheme of "Nobility by nation" What is nom proposing anyway?) Johnbod 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom is to delete. Looks like someone changed the template to remove that fact. In any case, if this is part of a series, then do we need both this one and Category:Vatican noble titles. If this one is to be kept, it probably needs to be renamed to Category:Vatican City nobility which is the more common name used in the categories. Vegaswikian 07:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm fine with that rename, but I wish people would look at what schemes a category is in before nominating, or commenting. Suggest changing nom to the rename per above. Johnbod 11:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nomination was modified at this point. Vegaswikian 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per (modified) nomination, for consistency with other by-nationality cats. Xtifr _tälk 19:57, 20 June 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 no consensus. Conscious 18:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion on

• Keep existing category names. Tewfik, you are incorrect. Here is what Abnn wrote on May 12, 2007 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#Consistent_Palestinian_naming_standards:

• Topics related to the general region are to use the term "Palestinian territories", for example:

1. Category:Airlines of Palestine to Category:Airlines in the Palestinian territories
2. Category:Aviation in Palestine to Category:Aviation in the Palestinian territories
3. Category:Sport in Palestine to Category:Sport in the Palestinian territories

So the current category names agree with Abnn's categorization ideas. --Timeshifter 04:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• airlines, and sport were not geographic terms the last time I checked. Tewfik^Talk 01:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

My interpretation of Abnn's idea was that categories relating to geography should be titled with either West Bank or Gaza Strip (bullet number 3). However, there was no consensus around the standard naming scheme, so we shouldn't treat it as gospel. nadav (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of the discussion is that no consensus was reached and it was suggested that time be allowed to come to a consensus. Then the discussion stopped. --Peter cohen 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to disagree with me? That's exactly what I was trying to say! nadav (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Sefringle^Talk 04:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and established precedent; as pointed out in the previous debates, things that exist in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank should be in those categories; things that are "Palestinian territory"-wide, like airlines, sport, aviation get that nomenclature. So, applying that rationale, as the nominator did correctly, geography is either in one place {West Bank or Gaza Strip) or another, as are cities, towns, and villages, and buildings and structures. Because we already have those categories; these ought to go. Carlossuarez46 05:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Container categories such as Category:Palestinian territories and Category:East Jerusalem and Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories are all navigational tools common to many wikipedia topics. When someone wants info on the Palestinian territories as a whole they go to that top level category. Same for maps. Otherwise people have to take a long convoluted path up and down category trees to find highly related categories such as Category:Gaza Strip and Category:West Bank. If those 2 categories are not put under Category:Palestinian territories, then they will have to be put under the much broader Category:Middle East. Look at the huge number of entries in that category. It is silly to force people to wade through that to find stuff. The same is true for airlines, aviation, sport, etc. in the Palestinian territories. People want to know about the Palestinians, and we shouldn't be playing political games with the category names. --Timeshifter 05:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about upmerging these categories into Category:Palestinian territories? This will, for example, place Category:Cities in the West Bank and Category:Cities in the Gaza Strip directly in Category:Palestinian territories without the need for an extra layer that just ties together two categories without doing much else. nadav (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Please have a look at Category:Hawaii. Hawaii is a grouping of islands. This is similar to the land grouping of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that make up the Palestinian territories. Note the subcategories such as Category:Geography of Hawaii, Category:Sports in Hawaii, Category:Transportation in Hawaii, Category:Airports in Hawaii, Category:Buildings and structures in Hawaii, Category:Settlements in Hawaii, Category:Cities in Hawaii, etc.. And interestingly, some Hawaiians have sovereignty struggles to break free of the USA. Like the Palestinian territories have sovereignty struggles to break free of Israel and the USA. But my point is that there are container categories for almost every topic. --Timeshifter 06:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:West Bank and Category:Gaza Strip are already included in Category:Palestinian territories, and the cities categories are in those hierarchies, so "yes" in a sense, that is already the way it is. Tewfik^Talk 06:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with a pure upmerge as Nadav suggests is that these buildings, cities, etc. are where they are regardless of what governmental structure is ruling them. Putting them in Palestinian Territories categories is wrong for a number of reasons, foremost among them: we don't quite know what the borders of those territories are or will be, pending a final peace treaty (for things like Sports, Airlines, Culture, etc., we don't need to know what they are) - indeed we don't know whether there will be one Palestinian nation or two after events of the past week - we cannot keep moving things around as the Palestinian government(s) control(s) more or less of the territory in the Gaza Strip and/or West Bank - let's just leave them in the defined geographies. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From Palestinian territories: "The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine captured and militarily occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and later, in the Six-Day War, by Israel. The designation typically refers to the territories governed in varying degrees by the Palestinian Authority or includes all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip." For categorization purposes we are talking about the geographical boundaries, not the political boundaries. The politics of the situation changes, but the geographical area remains the same. In the future, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian territories may completely change, including their names. But people know the geographical area. Israeli settlements are categorized under Category:West Bank. So there is no conflict there concerning being categorized under any "Palestinian territories" name. See Category:Israeli settlements. So "if it aint broke, don't fix it." Let us leave the current category names as they are. Also, it is much more convenient to be able to share a link to an overall category rather than sharing 2 links. We still have the 2 links for the subcategories for any of the above topics. But sometimes, I and many others, want to link to the overall category: Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories. For example from wikipedia articles, websites elsewhere, forums, email lists, etc..--Timeshifter 21:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see the logic of Category:Israeli settlements being classified under West Bank. Many of the subcategory Category:Israeli settlements were not West Bank. Dividing it into categories for Israeli settlements in Sinai, Golan and the Palestinian territories with this in turn divided into West Bank and Gaza would be more thorough. --Peter cohen 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see what you are saying. I just put Category:Israeli settlements under Sinai and Golan categories too. If people want to later divide it further by creating the specific subcategories that is fine by me. Are there any Israeli settlements left in the Gaza Strip? I thought there were no longer any left there. --Timeshifter 01:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThis classification parallels that for other non-contiguous countries, such as Russia where the Kallinigrad enclave is covered by the Russian categories. At present the position is that there are two separate putative governments in different parts of Palestine, but they both claim to be the legitimate government for the whole country. Civil wars are a frequent phenomenon and classifying areas of, say, Somalia by who happens to be in control of which bit at which time would be ridiculously burdensome. Having sub-categories for each part would allow for the potential of a split becoming more permanent.--Peter cohen 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, Palestine is not a country (except according to a few Arab countries, but the majority of the world doesn't recognize it), it's just a territory. TJ Spyke 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that claim is tendentious. The British government FCO site lists "The Occupied Palestinian Territories" among their coutry profiles [2]. In contrast the UK doesn't recognise an independent North Cyprus and lists information on it under Cyprus. In other words, the classification used in Wikipedia is paralled by that of an official organisation not in the Arab world. I've not gone fishing lots of official sites for one that agrees with me. This was the first I tried. I doubt that many of Belgium, Hungary, Canada, Cuba, Brazil, Peru, Zambia, Senegal, Thailand, India, Australia and East Timor would organise things differently. (List off the top of my head, two from each continent.) --Peter cohen 10:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The UK does, by its adherence to the Treaty of Rome, and membership in the EU recognize that the northern part of Cyprus is different from the part of Cyprus in which all EU regulations are applicable. While it does not send ambassadors there, it doesn't mean that the UK and the rest of the world is ignorant of the situation. They may not like it, but c'est la vie. As for "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is there any evidence that the UK considered them as a single entity and as occupied during 1948-1967 as in our article's description? I think you'll find it difficult to find instances where UK refused to recognize Jordan's and Egypt's sovereignty over the 2 different places. Carlossuarez46 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I was reflecting was the current classification by the UK as it reflects as an example on the category debate. Comments on the rest to your user page as not relevant here.--Peter cohen 11:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't believe this was (is) seriously being considered Delad 06:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there was no consensus reached in the discussion cited by the nominator, and his own understanding of the discussion is not sufficient grounds for deletion. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment considering that the standard was agreed to by myself, Alai, Abnn, and based on the previous compromise with Palmiro, I think that "consensus" is quite accurate, especially given the often disparate positions of the users in agreement. The only objection came from Tiamut, seemingly on the grounds that the proposal was then backed by Humus Sapiens, who she went on to make bad-faith allegations about. In any event, Abnn replied to all of her concerns. Tewfik^Talk 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no consensus. --Timeshifter 06:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tewfik. This category is pointless and can be dealt with West Bank and Gaza Strip. Following Hamas take-over of the Gaza Strip, this category is inherently inaccurate anyway. Amoruso 17:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 3 categories are all geographical categories. Geography, buildings, and cities in the Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter 14:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Amoruso --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Gaza Strip and Category:West Bank are more than enough. Beit Or 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tewfik and Carlossuarez. 6SJ7 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tewfik and Carlossuarez. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tewfik and Carlossuarez are both claiming that "Palestinian territories" is a political term. But most of the world uses it in its geographical meaning. From Palestinian territories: "The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine captured and militarily occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and later, in the Six-Day War, by Israel." Just like "Cyprus" generally refers to the whole island, and not the partitions of it over time.--Timeshifter 07:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following line from Palestinian territories: The designation typically refers to the territories governed in varying degrees by the Palestinian Authority or includes all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Tewfik^Talk 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep normal English-language usage, proposed rename increases confusion. DuncanHill 10:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Tewfik, Carlossuarez46 and others. Of course this is a political and has never been a merely "geographic" term as partisans claim. I find it bizarre that Timeshifter keeps citing a paragraph describing political changes and suddenly concluding that it is merely a geography. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the "Geography of..." categories are political. The United Kingdom one contains part (but not all) of the island of Ireland but also Guernsey ,an island off the coast of France. The only logic in these places being categorised with Great Britian is political. The categories for Russia and the United States both contain parts of big continental land masses separated from each other by other parts of those land masses that aren't part of the same by country category. Mainland Portugal and mainland Spain might on geographical terms be paired with each other, but instead are categorised to include Madeira and the Canary Islands respectively but not each other. Unless the whole geography by country system is being broken up, the fact that Gaza and the West Bank are only connected with each other politically is irrelevant. That is in the nature of by country categorisation.--Peter cohen 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently the undisputed, independent, and internationally recognised state of
      Palestinian National Authority, Israeli-occupied territories and State of Palestine, are one of several terms that describe different aspects of what has become of the part of Palestine administered by the British Mandate of Palestine. Even the political connection borne in 1994 of the Oslo Accords, and only developed in the latter part of that decade, has been cut short this last week, and so categorising geography with this transient, disputed term, still makes far less sense than using the established geographic terms of Gaza Strip and West Bank. And even the Seine has yet to be categorised under Category:Rivers of the European Union... Tewfik^Talk 01:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • It is mainly only the right-wing of Israeli politics that insists on a political definition of the name "Palestinian territories." Wikipedia uses the most common, English-language meaning of a name. For most people worldwide it is not a political decision to use the name "Palestinian territories". It just common usage to mean the totality of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. There are probably some French people who still don't like the name, "English Channel". By the way, I have lived in France. :) --Timeshifter 00:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Timeshifter still attempts to turn WP into a battleground. I suggest you find yourself another forum to express your aversion of "the right-wing of Israeli politics". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The term "Palestinian territories" is relatively new to me, but the geographically equivalent terms "occupied territories" and "disputed territories" have both been around for a long time. And the latter is a term favoured by Israel and her supporters. --Peter cohen 09:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tewfik is misrepresenting editors objections in his comments above about '"the undisputed, independent and internationally recognised state...". Please keep it clean. DuncanHill 09:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DuncanHill is misrepresenting Tewfik's comments - why doesn't he cease his baseless allegations? Please keep it clean. Tewfik^Talk 15:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Leave the politics out of it, this is a standard and necessary organisational category. Olborne 12:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 16:25, 25 June 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.