Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 29

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. Olympic Hockey Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, single item category, not needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dominictimms 17:35, 1 July 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, without prejudice against future nominations --Kbdank71 14:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical front organizations to Category:Front organizations

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The term "historical" is vague, as it could indicate that the organizations are an arbitrary age (50, 100, or 500 years old) or that the organizations no longer exist. In this case, the category is used for two front organizations that existed in the 1980s. The other orgnaizations in Category:Front organizations are not sorted according to status, and most other front organizations no longer exist (as once they are identified, they are generally shut down), so the "historical" category should be merged into the parent category. (If kept, renaming to "defunct" might be worthwhile.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• merge as specified. If we do make the separation, it would be better to start over and do it consistently. DGG 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think "front organization" is similar in nature to "cult", there are lots of organizations that are claimed to be "front ogranizations" which is always used derrogatorily so why perpetuate this? Carlossuarez46 22:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, but examine the "front organization" structure in a future nomination for POV and OR concerns. Otto4711 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, without prejudice against any future nomination of the merge target per Carlos and Otto. Xtifr _tälk 10:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Alex Middleton 23:33, 30 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, empty --Kbdank71 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universal System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Universal role-playing games already exists and has substantially more articles than this one, which only has one. T@nn 15:02, 29 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 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical figures portrayed in The Divine Comedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete/Listify - Real people featured in fictional works are generally known for their real-life accomplishments, not for being featured in specific fictional works. This is especially true for people like

Muhammed, and Thomas Aquinas, among the other people in this category. Moreover, the real people who appear in this category may have also appear in many other works of fiction. Therefore, the category should be deleted. However, as the material is of interest to people studying the subject, it should be listified. (Also see See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 17#Category:Historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare, where a similar category for historical figures in Shakespeare was deleted and where I stated concerns about more categories for people featured in the works of "notable" people.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep In this case I would keep it, because one of the key elements (and apparent motivations) in Dante's work was specifically his criticism of real historical figures -- many of which were contemporary political opponents.DGG 18:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't matter how important they were in Dante's work as the category is not on articles about his work, it is on articles about real people notable for other reasons. Cloachland 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for all the same reasons that the Shakespeare category was deleted. The people in the category are not notable for having been included in the fiction of a particular author and this opens the door to similar categories for any author who includes a historical figure in his or her work. Suggest listifying but not as a condition of deletion. Otto4711 22:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Listify - for the same reasons that the Shakespeare category was deleted, per my comments there (where I was a deletionist), and per Otto and Dr. Sub and many other participants in the prior debate. Carlossuarez46 23:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify 70.55.86.129 04:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not defining. Greg Grahame 14:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-defining. This just has to go if the Shakespeare category was deleted. Alex Middleton 23:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 12:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical GIS to Category:Historical geographic information systems

Nominator's rationale: Rename - This is a category for Geographic Information Systems used for studying history. The acronym "GIS" should be expanded for clarity. Note that the parent category uses the full title and not the acronym, although the corresponding article uses the acronym (although I will now attempt to move the article). Dr. Submillimeter 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The title is not a proper noun, so I am modifying my proposal to not capitalize the first letter of every word. Dr. Submillimeter 16:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Does it need the "Historical"? Xtifr _tälk 10:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, the word "historical" is needed. This is a specific subfield of
    Geographical Information Systems that is oriented towards tracking changes in geography over time. Dr. Submillimeter 13:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Rename per nom, although the article at Geographic information system (the non-redirect name) is a little ambiguous in its use of caps, which had me confused for a bit. I think nom has it correct now, but I'd be willing to listen to counterarguments. Xtifr _tälk 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I did a Google search on the term. Some websites write the phrase "geographic information system" with capitals, while others do not. The phrase is frequently written in capitals just before defining the abbreviation GIS, which suggests that the capitals are added only to highlight the connection to the abbreviation. Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 13:55, 3 July 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 per precedent --Kbdank71 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historic ships of Australia to Category:Ships of Australia

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The term "historic" is very vague, as it could indicate that the ships are an arbitrary age (50, 100, or 200 years old), that the ships no longer exist, or that the ships are museum ships. Some of these ships were still in service as recently as the 1980s (Australia II, HMAS Diamantina (K377)). The category should be upmerged into Category:Ships of Australia, as the designation "historic" almost seems to be used arbitrarily in a way that is similar to "notable". (Note that some of the ships, such as SS Great Britain, are not even Australian.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. "Historic" isn't quite as bad as "Notable" or "Famous" in a category name, but it certainly has similar problems. Xtifr _tälk 10:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Greg Grahame 14:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Chronological breakdowns are used in many areas of categorisation, but "Historic" is problematic. A breakdown by century would work better. Wimstead 13:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In this case, Category:Australian ships built in N (where N is a specific year, decade, or century) might be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 09:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic places in Colombia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - The term "historic" is very vague, as it could indicate that the places are an arbitrary age (50, 100, or 200 years old), that the places no longer exist, or that the places are in some type of government historic register. Moreover, the two articles in this category have nothing in common.

Hacienda Napoles is a complex used by a contemporary drug lord, and New Kingdom of Granada is the former designation for the Spanish colony that encompassed Columbia. The category should be deleted outright. Dr. Submillimeter 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. Every place grows more historic every day. Cloachland 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:28, 29 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 per precedent --Kbdank71 14:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The use of the word "historic" is subjective. This could indicate that the buildings are an arbitrary age (50, 100, or 200 years old), that the buildings no longer exist, or that the buildings are in some type of government historic register. Because of this ambiguty, the category should be renamed. (Note the discussions from 19 Jun 2007 and 21 Jun 2007 for anomst all similarly-named categories, including the parent category (Category:Houses in Wales).) Dr. Submillimeter 14:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Cloachland 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & per the prior discussions. Carlossuarez46 22:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & per the prior discussions. Greg Grahame 14:24, 30 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 per precedent --Kbdank71 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The parent category is Category:Houses by country. Most other "historic house" categories were renamed without "historic" following discussions started on 19 Jun 2007 and 21 Jun 2007 because the term "historic" is vaguely defined. The term could refer to buildings that are an arbitrary age (50, 100, or 200 years old), buildings that no longer exist, or buildings that are in some type of government historic register. Frequently, it is used to just indicate "notable and old", in which case the term is not needed, as all Wikipedia articles should be on notable topics. Hence, the category should be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Cloachland 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & per the prior discussions. Greg Grahame 14:24, 30 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 14:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic civil engineering landmarks to Category:Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks

Nominator's rationale: Rename - This is an official designation by the American Society of Civil Engineers for civil engineering structures. The designation appears to be written as a proper noun, with the first letter of each word capitalized; see [1], for example. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: uneccessary as there is already a

list of those structures 'approved' by the ASCE. As it is defined with finite numbers, WP guidelines would recommend listifying rather than categorising it. However, the description in the category's page is not in keeping with its members, which contains other significant stuctures as well. Ephebi 14:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - Please read the nomination carefully. This is merely a nomination to change the capitalization, not to delete it or remove the name "historic". Dr. Submillimeter 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Perhaps you should read my response carefully  ;-) as the category in question has moved away from the ASCE

list (which already allows both formats). You'd do better aiming for consistency & dropping the 'historic' moniker Ephebi 14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - It was unclear whether you were advocating for keeping the category as is or for keeping it but cleaning it up. A category for any "historic" civil engineering accomplishment would not be useful, as non-notable civil engineering works (e.g. non-historic civil engineering works) would not appear in Wikipedia. However, a category for the sites designated by the ASCE would be very useful, as the designation is not arbitrarily chosen by editors. (Could people adding comments after mine also indicate whether the category should be cleaned up to match the ASCE list?) Dr. Submillimeter 15:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks designated by the American Society of Civil Engineers and prune, or (second choice) delete. This is a subjective category unless it sticks to the official list. The current name appears to be global, but it is not. If the UN was doing the designating, the current name would be fine, but in the circumstances it does not reflect the local nature of the category. Cloachland 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a by-opinion category from a unofficial organization. Whereas the historic houses and listed houses appear to be so denoted by governmental entities, this is a civil engineering society bestowing "status" on various buildings and engineering works; are we going to have equivalent categories for the architect's organization, critics, Prince Charles, Time Magazine, Architectural Digest, and anyone else who has an unofficial opinion on what constitutes their "landmarks"? We have the list, the cat is overcat by "award". Carlossuarez46 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carlossuarez46 , but if kept rename to the long version proposed by Cloachland. Greg Grahame 14:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (preference) or Rename - The comments by Carlossuarez46 are correct. This list is not really an official designation but instead the opinion of a non-government entity as to what should be considered important. Looking at the ASCE pages, the designation does not appear to lead to any additional protection or preservation work at the site, nor does it change the way that such work is funded or the way that the site is managed. This ultimately appears to fall under the "inclusion in a published list" criterion at Wikipedia:Overcategorization, and so it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or rename per Cloachland, not nom, if kept). This looks like it is effectively a case of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners. I don't think the award is notable enough to justify a category, but if it is, the category definitely should be renamed to clarify the non-official status of this designation. Xtifr _tälk 01:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historic buildings of Louisville to Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville

Suggest merging Category:Historic houses of Louisville to Category:Houses in Louisville

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The use of the word "historic" is subjective. This could indicate that the buildings are an arbitrary age (50, 100, or 200 years old), that the buildings no longer exist, or that the buildings are in some type of government historic register. Because of this ambiguty, the articles should be moved into categories that do not use the term "historic". (Note the discussions from 19 Jun 2007 and 21 Jun 2007 for anomst all similarly-named categories.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeSupport (with implemented suggestion below). 'Historic' is a valid editorial judgment that can be based on various obvious factors, such as age or listing in a historic register. Further, these categories are naturally both descendants of
  Talk • Work 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - Allowing editors to make "editorial judgments" as to whether to include or exclude articles in categories may lead to interpretation problems. Moreover, choosing an arbitrary (and unstated) age for differentiating between "historic" and "modern" buildings is impractical and contrary to the recommndations at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Categorizing articles by whether they are in historic registers is useful, as being in a historic register is objectively defined. However, other categories exist for buildings in historic registers (such as Category:Registered historic buildings of Lousiville). Dr. Submillimeter 20:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree there is any "overcategorization" here. And it is not impractical in the least to distinguish buildings according to age -- why else do we have historic preservation? (Do we actively seek to preserve buildings erected in the 1980's, or 1880's?) However, I am open to considering more specific category naming, such as "Louisville buildings constructed pre-1900". Otherwise, we will have an unnecessarily fat building and structures category. If you don't care about that, fine, but I care deeply about categorization of Louisville-related articles and I will keep them under control.
      Talk • Work 20:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Comment - Categorizing buildings by century or decade would probably be acceptable, as that can be objectively defined. However, I would suggest avoiding using "pre-1900", as that seems too much like an arbitrary cut-off. Dr. Submillimeter 22:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about we create
          Talk • Work 00:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Comment - I suggest using Category:Nth century buildings and structures in Louisville to more closely match the name of the parent category. Otherwise, the division looks OK to me. Dr. Submillimeter 08:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, this suggestion has been implemented. I can go ahead and implement the other elements of the nomination if there's no objections.
              Talk • Work 04:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • Comment - At this point, I suggest just waiting for the discussion to be closed and letting the administration take care of the historic categories. Dr. Submillimeter 07:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and precedents. Cloachland 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename per nom. Alex Middleton 23:35, 30 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 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political parties in the Pitcairn Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: According to Politics of the Pitcairn Islands, there are no such parties, and they're unlikely to develop in the foreseeable future. Thus, this category is doomed to remain empty. Digwuren 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as empty and without room for growth. LeSnail 18:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic Virginia state highways to Category:Former Virginia state highways

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historic" here is being used to refer to highways that no longer exist. However, "historic" could just as easily be interpreted as simply old, or it could refer to some type of designation at the state or federal level for currently existing highways (such as highways that pass by several National Historic Sites). Therefore, I recommend using the term "former", which more clearly indicates that these highway designations are no longer in use. Dr. Submillimeter 13:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Cloachland 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:38, 29 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 keep and correct to a {categoryredirect} --Kbdank71 14:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Energy in the UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Re-direct category only. Delete to dissuade incorrect use.
—

talk · contribs

) 2007-06-29Z11:49

• Keep This is exactly what category redirects are for. Cloachland 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this seems to be a regular redirect, not a category redirect. As such, it should probably go to
  WP:RFD instead of being listed here. Aren't regular redirects for categories a really bad idea, in general? Xtifr _tälk 10:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Redirects for categories are a good idea, in general. Greg Grahame 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Close and relist at RFD. Whilst category redirects are sometimes useful, this is a misused regular redirect anyway.
  Bencherlite 12:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep after converting it to {categoryredirect}. Sohelpme 02:24, 4 July 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 upmerge to Category:Olympic competitors for Great Britain per precedent --Kbdank71 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Competitors for Great Britain at the 1908 Summer Olympics to Category:Competitors for Great Britain and Ireland at the 1908 Summer Olympics

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article

Great Britain and Ireland at the 1924 Summer Olympics - even although Ireland had left the Union a couple of years previously) included athletes from throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not simply the former. While I am here, it is worth pointing out that Category:Great Britain at the Olympics is rather unfortunately misnamed. Mais oui! 09:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Over categorization by year/nation combinations. The Olympics project categorizes by years, by countries, and by events; but, not by the cominations. Several recent (2000- ) similar cats were delete recently, and the two remaining sets of years (1904 and 1908) will be nominated en masse when I get back from my wikibreak (provided someone does not take care of it before then). Neier 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unchanged - Even though the official name of the nation in 1908 was "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", the name of the Olympic team has always been just "Great Britain". The IOC currently uses just "Great Britain", and the official report from almost every Games since 1896 uses just "Great Britain" (or "Grande-Bretagne"). (Ironically, the 1908 report uses something else, namely "United Kingdom"!) The category is correctly named; it is the article that needs renaming. Andrwsc 00:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tamworth Country Music Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one article within this category directly relates to the festival. The other (which I've since removed), was an article on the city of Tamworth itself. I propose deletion as overcategorisation. -- Longhair\^talk 08:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also ambigious to which Tamworth it's referring to without checking the articles in the cat. Lugnuts 11:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment - not in the context of country music - Tamworth is probably second only to Nashville in terms of country. As such, it's a little like requiring that an article's name be changed to "Boston, Massachusetts, Tea Party" since there is more than one Boston. Having said that, deletion is probably in order. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just not required. Cloachland 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cloachland and Grutness. Rebecca 08:24, 2 July 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 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communist propaganda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Clear POV category. Why should communist media and newspapers be dubbed as 'propaganda'? Soman 07:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was an official part of their chartered purpose? In general, Communists didn't view the term 'propaganda' as having negative connotations.

• Keep, at least until a better rationale for deletion is offered. Digwuren 17:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, "propaganda" is a value neutral word, even the Pope has his
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is no reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Perfectly legitimate category. Greg Grahame 14:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Makes the mistake of simplifying the complex phenomenon to a list of newspapers, mixing a tool having a convenient functional attribute with an activity. Even this list is lousy, missing pearls like
  Der Schwarze Kanal
  .

The current category is not fixable until actual articles about communist propaganda appear on WP. E.g. for Czechoslovakia the proper items here would be (1) official directives issued by the central committee and their implementation, (2) the departement of central committee reponsible for the propaganda, (3) use of modern art in propaganda, (4+) history (pre-war propaganda is a very interesting topic), laws and their changes, counter-propaganda to the West, etc. Pavel Vozenilek 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to :Category:Communist mass-media as this is what category contains, but keep anyway. Johnbod 21:07, 2 July 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 13:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who helped Jews during the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A seemingly useful category, but not one based on an objective standard of membership. Can be problematic in biographies where the role of the person during the Holocaust is disputed or mixed (such as Joel Brand or Pope Pius XII). If the standard of membership is if the person helped Jews at all (even if they also did some things that hurt them), then maybe we have to add it to Adolf Eichmann for his work with Zionists, Adolf Hitler for Eduard Bloch, etc. I would suggest categories based on objective and indisputable criteria, such as Category:Righteous Among the Nations, which already exists, instead. Savidan 06:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vaguely named, subjective category. Doczilla 06:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There needs to be some way of formed a category for those who have been claimed to rightly or wrongly to have such status, but who are not necessarily within the very well defined Category:Righteous Among the Nations, but I cannot immediately ting of a NPOV name. DGG 19:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no way to tell who's in and who's out, unlike the "Righteous ..." cat. I also agree with DGG's comments, but I cannot formulate a wording that makes sense, it's a little like actors who deserved the oscar but the academy didn't bestow it, which is horribly POV but there you have it....Carlossuarez46 22:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The contents of an article should be the criteria for which categories the article belongs to. If the contents show these people helped, then then should go into this category; if the article content is wrong, then it should be changed. Nothing POV about this; just facts. Look at this categories to which this category belongs for why this name was used (not by me, by the way) Hmains 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such determinations appear arbitrary to me. Whether someone has "helped" someone else is relatively subjective. Savidan 17:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 14:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. Bulldog123 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Delete, "helped" is fairly subjective, and moreover, for many people, this is in no way a defining characteristic. Excellent list material, though, since the criteria for inclusion can be included (and debated) on a per-member basis. Xtifr _tälk 20:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 15:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vague categorisation. Categories are not here to duplicate the text of article or serve as a tags. Pavel Vozenilek 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with DGG, but it's not the same as "actors who didn't win an Oscar". Supposedly these people saved Jews, but weren't recognized for it. If somebody's researching exactly those type of people, how will they find them? Misheu 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep nominator's rationale is too absurd and extreme.
  Recorder 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Vague criteria for inclusion. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete better to replace a subjective category like this with a category like Category:Righteous Among the Nations with an absolute inclusion criterium. Can the supporters of this category provide examples of individuals who should be categorized but wouldn't be in Righteous Among the Nations? GabrielF 21:56, 4 July 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 13:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:University of Southern California Trojans baseball players to Category:USC Trojans baseball players
  

Matching all other such categories, e.g. Category:USC Trojans football players. We use the most common name of the school before the sport in all cases, including all subcategories of Category:College baseball players.--Mike Selinker 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment perhaps we ought to expand the initials on all the other categories; I thought that we were moving away from initials if the name can be spelled out. Carlossuarez46 22:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all cases with college sports teams, we use the most common name. It's just closer to reality; almost no one refers to the "University of Southern California Trojans" when the "USC Trojans" is available as an option.--Mike Selinker 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I tend to agree with Carlossuarez46 that it should move away from initialisms: a parent cat is
  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General naming conventions Avoid abbreviations. Example: "World War II equipment", not "WW2 equipment". Looking at Category:College football players, initialisms hardly seem to be the norm--I see only 3 or 4 in the first 200. Sohelpme 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Right, but we never have "University of" there, and "Southern California Trojans" is just incorrect.--Mike Selinker 05:21, 4 July 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 13:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials in Glasnevin Cemetery to Category:Burials at Glasnevin Cemetery

Category:Burials in Mount Jerome Cemetery to Category:Burials at Mount Jerome Cemetery

Category:Burials in St. Fintan's Cemetery, Sutton to Category:Burials at St. Fintan's Cemetery (no disambiguator needed)

Category:Buried in Fremantle Cemetery to Category:Burials at Fremantle Cemetery

Category:Buried in Karrakatta Cemetery to Category:Burials at Karrakatta Cemetery

Category:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills) to Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills)

Category:Forest Lawn Memorial-Parks & Mortuaries to Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale) (if this is accurate)

Category:Jews buried in the Mount of Olives to Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives (no ethnic group needed for a Jewish cemetery)

Category:People buried at Imogiri to Category:Burials at Imogiri

Category:People buried at the Panthéon to Category:Burials at the Panthéon

Category:People buried at the Zentralfriedhof to Category:Burials at the Zentralfriedhof

Category:People buried in Brompton Cemetery to Category:Burials at Brompton Cemetery

Category:People buried in Greyfriars Kirkyard to Category:Burials at Greyfriars Kirkyard

Category:People buried in Highgate Cemetery to Category:Burials at Highgate Cemetery

Category:People buried in Kensal Green Cemetery to Category:Burials at Kensal Green Cemetery

Category:People buried in San Michele to Category:Burials at Isola di San Michele

Category:People buried in West Norwood Cemetery to Category:Burials at West Norwood Cemetery

Category:People buried in Westminster Abbey to Category:Burials at Westminster Abbey

Category:Woodlawn Cemetery, Bronx burials to Category:Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery (The Bronx)

Category:Burials at Graceland Cemetery, Chicago to Category:Burials at Graceland Cemetery (Chicago)

Category:Burials at Oakwood Cemetery, Syracuse to Category:Burials at Oakwood Cemetery (Syracuse)

Category:People buried in space to Category:Space burials

This is a followup nomination to the one we just had on Burials. There the closer correctly interpreted the result as a keep. But I made a separate nomination to standardize the style to "Burials at...", as the main category uses this most prevalently. "Burials in" would also be fine, and if that's the direction chosen here, I'll nominate the rest after we standardize these. This is not a renomination for deletion, as consensus is clear that these categories should be kept. It is merely a discussion on standardized formats.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm neutral on the question of whether standardising these is really necessary or desirable. But if the decision is taken to standardise, I'm opposed to the rather strange sounding "burials in" or "burials at" format as proposed. "People buried in" or "People buried at" is much clearer, and clarity is much more important than brevity. If brevity is really that important, then "Buried in" or "Buried at" is still better than what is proposed here. Hesperian 01:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a brevity issue. Like I said, I'm happy to settle on one standard. The reason I don't think we need "people," though, is that we already use "1984 births" and "1969 deaths," and people aren't "births" or "deaths." Just my opinion, though. (I don't like "Buried at" by itself, though, because a category entry should be a noun.)--Mike Selinker 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: "births" and "death", that is true. It is pretty hard to argue with that. Hesperian 04:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much concur with Hesperian on these matters. ISTR it took a few attempts to get the right terminology about a year ago for the 'People buried in ...' format Ephebi 07:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, though like him, I'm happy to standardize on consensus. Johnbod 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nam. --Philip Stevens 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by dropping the 'People...' prefix does this mean we intend to expand the Burials category to include buried items other than people, e.g.
  pet cemeteries, coin hordes, Carbon capture and storage, coal & oil, etc?Ephebi 07:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Funny you should bring that up, Ephebi. I think a strong case can be made for Greyfriars Bobby being included in a category called "Burials at Greyfriars Kirkyard." The dog was buried just outside the cemetery due to the hallowed ground concern, so he's not "People" and he's not "in" the cemetery. But he certainly fits in "Burials at Greyfriars Kirkyard". Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 17:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not everybody gets buried 'in' the abbey, in which case 'at' may be more accurate if they are interred in the grounds. I think Buried in... is generally good expression, but if you are trying to standardise its only one technique, and 'at' may be more technically accurate - others commonly include catacombs, an urn in a recordia, columbaria. Not to mention the less geograpically-specific ones like sati, sky burial and space burial. Ephebi 07:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. May want to reconsider Category:Burials at Graceland Cemetery, Chicago to Category:Burials at Graceland Cemetery (Chicago). There is a Graceland Cemetery in Abbeville, Louisiana, Valparaiso, Indiana, Freeborn County, Minnesota, one in the Washington DC area, Superior Wisconsin and probably many more. Clearly the Chicago one is the primary use, but since it was already dabbed, why not leave it as a dab? Vegaswikian 08:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, no problem. Amended.--Mike Selinker 17:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using "People buried in/at" - The version starting with "people" just seems less awkward than the "burials" version. Dr. Submillimeter 08:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This completes moving several different forms to a common standard. As to including people, follow the lead of yyyy births and deaths which don't include people. If this is perceived as an issue, add a common introduction to each category like the one for
  inhumation. Vegaswikian 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment doesn't "in" and "at" depend on the location? Someone is buried at (or in) Arlington, one is buried in (not "at" in American English usage) Westminster Abbey, one is "buried" in (not at) space, one is "buried" at (not in) sea. So these burial categories - now they've been kept - cannot be fully consistent anyway. Carlossuarez46 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would recommend using "in" for cemeteries and "at" for buildings and the ocean, but I have no recommendations for space. Both "buried in space" or "buried at space" sound strange. Dr. Submillimeter 13:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That one could just be "Space burials" to match the article Space burial.--Mike Selinker 13:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dr. Sub's suggestion has merit & Mike's re: space burial. Carlossuarez46 21:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So amended.--Mike Selinker 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Greg Grahame 14:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using "Buried at ..." per nom. with the exceptions above for unusual circumstances. This gives us as fair degree of consistency, and allows inclusion of Greyfriars Bobby et. al. Ephebi 16:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as follows: per Dr. Sub's comment of 13:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC): "in" for cemeteries; "at" for buildings and sea, and "space burials" for those per Mike Selinker's rejoinder of 13:53. Carlossuarez46 21:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The notable burial places listed include folks disposed of in less traditional ways than internment. My dictionaries (US & Eng) don't help here, but I would have thought that 'in' is too specific as it does not cover the use of locked vaults, raised catacombs, scattering of ashes, urns held in columbaria, etc., and circumstances where the unbaptised or dissenters were buried just outside the consecrated grounds. Ephebi 10:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If someone is placed within a catacombs or vault in a cemetery, he could still be described as "in" the cemetery (i.e. "in" the boundaries of the cemetery), just not in the ground. (Or is the point that the person is not actually "buried"?) Dr. Submillimeter 12:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you've answered your own question - in that instance they are placed in the catacombs in, or at, a place. Ref 'bury', arm yourself with a good dictionary, you'll see at has more than one context. Here its used for any method of dealing with the dead. Thus burying something in the ground is one context, disposing of a corpse by burying it in someplace or at some place is a different context. Ephebi 13:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Which of my questions did I answer? I'm confused. Dr. Submillimeter 14:40, 1 July 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.