Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 26

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

The result of the discussion was: not rename. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category: Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War to category: Georgia in the American Civil War — Would anyone seriously think it would be any other Georgia? radiojon 05:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Weak oppose, consistency in naming is a Good Thing, and every other cat includes "(U.S. state)". Anyway, I'm not enough of an expert in the Civil War to know whether or not Georgia-the-country had any involvement or not. I'm also not sure that an international audience has the familiarity with US history and geography that nom seems to be assuming. At the very least, this should probably have a full discussion, rather than being speedied. Xtifr _tälk 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved out of speedy. Hawkestone 23:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the sake of consistency and clarity. -Sean Curtin 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for consistency, to prevent any ambiguity that might result from people taking this precedent and running with it, and because Georgia (the other one) might conceivably have some articles related to the American Civil War (like ethnic Georgians in the US Civil War). 70.55.86.83 13:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Jamie Mercer 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Given that you could easily put Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski into a Category:Poland in the American Civil War, it's not too much of a stretch to see that anon 70.55...'s point is valid. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DC Comics villains, non-superpowered to Category:DC Comics supervillains

• Merge, the distinction of powerlessness is meaningless where powers come and go. The majority of DC villains are powerless but are considered "supervillains" nonetheless as it is the villainy which is super, not the villain. The category system seems to work better for Category:DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered where this distinction draws upon a particular subset of heroes like Batman, Oracle and Green Arrow.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, not a distinction that should be made in category names. --musicpvm 23:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. "Non-superpowered" is not as obvious as it might seem. Hal Jordan isn't superpowered unless he wears a ring. Ralph Dibny has to drink gingold or he can't stretch. Doczilla 03:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -Sean Curtin 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Some discussion of this has taken place before. --GentlemanGhost 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Powers or not, if Batman's a superhero without any, then the Joker is too. Etc etc and so on. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Webcasters in united states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Completes a set with the three categories below. Similar reasoning applies. Haddiscoe 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per my noms below. Corvus cornix 19:28, 26 May 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 speedy deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Webcasters in California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Contains one radio station. So many radio stations do webcasts that creating a duplicate set of categories on this basis is pointless. Haddiscoe 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per my noms below. Corvus cornix 19:28, 26 May 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Webcasters in united states by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listcruft. Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of webcasters in California. Corvus cornix 17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is just too fine a way to slice up people in a field in which borders matter little. Haddiscoe 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization per precedent. Doczilla 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Webcasters in north america by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listcruft. Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of webcasters in California Corvus cornix 17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete But it isn't a list. However it is a pointless extra tier. Haddiscoe 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that this is not a list, but all of the articles associated with it are nothing but lists. Corvus cornix 19:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Daugavpils airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category for airports near the Latvian city of Daugavpils. There are not enough airports in Latvia to justify adding superfluous subcats. Note that the cat is currently empty but this is simply due to the fact that I first upmerged the cat's content (consisting of a single article). Note that Daugavpils has a population around 100K people so I doubt that there are more than a couple of airports in that region. Pascal.Tesson 16:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Note for this and all further noms: Musicpvm's statement (found at the bottom of the page) is an empty argument (paraphrased, "I object to this mass nom ... find the cats useful ... and don't understand why they're being deleted"). In essence he is objecting to several dozen nominations on procedural grounds, not bothering to give an argument to the actual content. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hell's Kitchen (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is not needed for the material in it. Otto4711 15:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see comment below. --musicpvm 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-replies see counter-replies to musicpvm below in the NYC Blue cfd. Dugwiki 19:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article. Carlossuarez46 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe there is sufficient content here for a category. Tim! 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Following cleanup there are two articles and one sub-cat. Your statement that this is sufficient content contradicts your statement here. I am curious as to whether that previous statement is an accurate reflection of your position and if so why this category should be retained in light of it. Otto4711 19:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You usually do the cleanup before nominating and when I left this comment there was sufficient content. Anyway these are currently running series so have potential for growth. Tim! 11:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see you created the Category:Hell's Kitchen (TV series) episodes on 30 May, after this nomination. Tim! 11:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed that the average Wikipedian could figure out that the bulk of the content belonged in an episodes subcat. I note that your "potential for growth" argument was rejected here. Otto4711 00:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was endorsed here Tim! 08:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a "no consensus" closure isn't an endorsement. Otto4711 12:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. "There is material" is not grounds for keeping a cat. "There is no material" is grounds for speedy deletion, so nearly all cats on CFD have "material". >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heartbeat (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the material does not require an eponymous category. Otto4711 15:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is material, and this is the right place for it. Deletion is unnecessary. Haddiscoe 18:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are four articles which are all linked to each other through the text, including sectional links through the main article and "see also" sections. What specifically does this category accomplish in navigational terms that isn't already accomplished by the interlinkages? Otto4711 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see comment below. --musicpvm 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-replies see counter-replies to musicpvm below in the NYC Blue cfd. Dugwiki 19:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article. Carlossuarez46 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Haddiscoe. Tim! 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I'll ask you the same question that Haddiscoe has yet to answer. Otto4711 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It allows a simple navigation between articles on a similar topic, whereas the categories in which for example

Heartbeat (characters and cast) is in, would lead to characters in other television series which readers are less likely to be interested in. As the number of articles about Heartbeat grows, the interlinking through see also sections will not scale, and will not benefit from the dynamic properties of categories. Tim! 11:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• You're assuming that more articles will be written about the series, something that is far from assured, and that those articles won't be as easily navigable from the article and other articles, which is also far from assured. In your specific example, should someone find themselves at
  Heartbeat (characters and cast) and wish to read more about Heartbeat, they will have no problem finding the information as the very first sentence of the article contains a link to Heartbeat (TV series). Otto4711 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Honeymooners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - absent the improperly categorized articles for people associated with the show, the remaining material does not require a category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 15:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see comment below. --musicpvm 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-replies see counter-replies to musicpvm below in the NYC Blue cfd. Dugwiki 19:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article. Carlossuarez46 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Home and Away (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is not needed for the material. Otto4711 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is material, and this is the right place for it. Deletion is unnecessary. Haddiscoe 18:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two articles, each of which is linked to the other and both of which are appropriately otherwise categorized, and a subcat whose contents are in the main article for the show and that's part of the characters by series tree. What specifically does this category provide for navigational purposes that isn't accomplished by the extensive interlinking amongst its constituents? Otto4711 19:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see comment below. --musicpvm 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-replies see counter-replies to musicpvm below in the NYC Blue cfd. Dugwiki 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article. Carlossuarez46 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - empty except for a characters sub-cat. Otto4711 14:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article. Carlossuarez46 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hee Haw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - everything except the show article is for performers which is improper overcategorization. Category not needed. Otto4711 14:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article. Carlossuarez46 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Kbdank71 02:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming all the by-year sub-categories of the sub-categories Category:Transportation disasters by year from the format "xxx disasters in YMCD" to "YMCD xxx disasters" per convention of Category:Categories by year (including the parent category Category:Disasters by year, and to facilitate use of the {{Year by category}} and {{BDDecadesInCentury}} navigation templates, which both rely on the "YMCD (in) foo" format.

Category:Transportation disasters by year

Propose renaming Category:Transportation disasters in 1120 to Category:1120 Transportation disasters
Category:Transportation disasters in 1527 to Category:1527 Transportation disasters
etc

Category:Maritime incidents by year

Propose renaming Category:Maritime incidents in 1120 to Category:1120 maritime incidents
Category:Maritime incidents in 1527 to Category:1527 maritime incidents
etc

Category:Railway accidents by year

Propose renaming Category:Railway accidents in 1815 to Category:1815 Railway accidents
Category:Railway accidents in 1847 to Category:1847 Railway accidents
etc

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by year

Propose renaming Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1913 to Category:1913 Aviation accidents and incidents
Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1921 to Category:1921 Aviation accidents and incidents
etc

Category:Road accidents by year

Propose renaming Category:Road accidents in 2002 to Category:2002 road accidents
Category:Road accidents in 2003 to Category:2003 road accidents
etc

Nominators rationale: These sub-categories of Category:Disasters by year (and Category:Natural disasters by year, see CfD May 23) are rare exceptions to the convention of Category:Categories by year, which is MCDY whatever or MCDY in whatever. Category trees such as these are much easier to use if they follow a consistent format, and a significant part of CfD's workload is standardising category names. These disaster categs should not be an exception to the convention which works for hundreds of stuff by year categories in all sorts of fields, including Category:Earthquakes in the 21st century, Category:Years in architecture, Category:Disestablishments by year, Category:Establishments by year, Category:Crimes by year, Category:Conferences by year, Category:Elections by year, Category:Films by year, Category:Law by year, Category:Singles by year, Category:Television awards by year and Category:20th century television program debuts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will now start tagging the individual sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging now complete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all The existing format is better English, and given the number of categories involved I don't see how these can be described as "rare". Haddiscoe 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Rarity is a relative thing. There are four or five of these "xxx by year" categories which use "xxx in YMCD", but hundreds which use "YMCD xxx". In this case, there are indeed several hundred sub-categories involved, but those are very rare when compared with the tens of thousands of sub-categories named according to the "YMCD xxx" convention.
    Category names are frequently a balancing act between English grammar and other constraints such as consistency, and CfD's convention is to prioritise consistency over grammar, which is why (for example) so many sub-categories of Category:New Zealand use "New Zealand" as an adjective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Tim! 09:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wikipedia's tendency to use bad grammar is a result of a couple of factors which should be resisted: its geeky origins, and a tendency to assume that the greatest possible brevity is required that seems to be a carry-over from paper reference books. Postlebury 11:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — Using years as adjectives is more confusing and needless. It is fine the way it is. – Zntrip 00:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply So the consistency sought in countless CfD nominations is useless? :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've never seen this as a problem, and in fact have often wondered if we should instead be moving things the other way round - making this the rule, not the exception. Makes for much easier reading, and Postlebury's right - we don't need to balance between brevity and grammer, we can prioritise grammer, because we're
  not paper. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Like Blood Read Sandman, I am in favour of making the status quo for these categories the rule, rather than the exception. Bluap 03:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you counted how many thousands of categories would have to be changed to achieve that, and how many category navigation templates would need to duplicated along the way, all for a marginal improvement in grammar and little gain in clarity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Manually, one. There must be a bot somewhere that can do it once we show it how. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless there is such a bot, and it is available for this enormous job, and such a change is also agreed at CfD, then all that your vote achieves in inconsistency in category names. --15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, at some point I'll start asking around and see if anyone has a bot they'd be willing to volounteer for it - bots often do a lot of work cleaning up after CfDs. As for reaching a consensus, isn't that what we're discusing now? If there hasn't been enough discusion at the end to decide whether or not to implement this new idea (as I suspect there won't) then we can allways relist the whole lot and start all over again. It's not quite so daunting as it may seem. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suggest that you look more closely at the by-year categories, and the category navigation templates use both on those categories and on their parent by-decade and by-century categories. I don't think that a bot can do it without a huge amount of human effort and template changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I get the impression (<- should that only be one "s"? Bearing in mind I use Brittish English) that there are a number of bots availible regularly for CfD cleanup. If each of them was assigned a chunk to do, between them they should get it done overnight sometime. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The "XXXX YYYY" form is ugly and ambiguous. As there is no reason to use it other than consistency with bad precedents, it would be better to start making an effort to move the convention the other way. Hawkestone 23:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't buy the nom's rationale...keeping these in current form provides no increased workload to anyone at WP. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:12, 5 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category tended to pop up in articles about real locations, which seems to have had the effect of the article on the real location being the subject of unbalanced editing. For instance the

• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the merger seems to be the best solution here to avoid
  undue weight of the type mentioned above. *** Crotalus *** 16:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and good comment by Crotalus Bulldog123
• Delete per several precedents. Osomec 12:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 07:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CIS to Category:Commonwealth of Independent States

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Spell out the abbreviation to avoid ambiguity. Tim! 08:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 09:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename there are several other CIS, like the
  Canadian Interuniversity Sport, and CI$ - CompuServe Information Service. 70.55.86.83 13:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment seems like a good idea, but spelling out CIS in all its subcategories is going to be very awkward and not as obvious as CIS. Hmains 16:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The abbreviation CIS is not used in the names of either of the two sub-categories, and it is used in the names of only three of the articles in Category:CIS. In don't see that spelling it out in 12 category entries going to be a huge strain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Johnbod 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to WikiProject Georgia (country) articles. --Kbdank71 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgian articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete to prevent confusion with category:Georgian (country). Brandon97 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. NB. It's category:Georgia (country). Alex Middleton 09:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Seems right, but this will orphan the articles. Where do they go? Do they even belong in WP main space? Hmains 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and rename to Category:WikiProject Georgia (country) articles, and rename the subcategories accordingly. These are maintenance categories of WikiProject Georgia (country), and are evidently needed by that project, but should all be parented under Category:WikiProject Georgia (country) rather than under Category:Georgia (country). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per BHG, if the wikiproject is still active, these should be kept. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have nominated the subcategories for renaming to the same format: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 28#Wikiproject_Georgia_articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Congolese musicians to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo musicians

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The only content is the subcategory listed below, which relates to the

Annandale 02:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The music is called Congolese music - see eg
  -- roundhouse 00:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Merge into

-- roundhouse 01:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• What would you call people from the other Congo then? 70.55.86.83 13:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per roundhouse 70.55.86.83 13:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo musicians per nom. Dominictimms 02:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo musicians per nom. Hawkestone 23:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Congolese singers to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo singers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. All 3 singers are from the

Annandale 02:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, or to Category:Congolese (Democratic Republic of the Congo) singers 70.55.86.83 13:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Dominictimms 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Congolese writers to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo writers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The only content is the subcategory listed below, which relates to the

Annandale 02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 18:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The title of the first work by the only person in the subcat is 'Kinshasa: Lettres Congolaises' which suggests Congolese is le mot juste.
  -- roundhouse 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What would you call people from the other Congo then? 70.55.86.83 13:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, or to Category:Congolese (Democratic Republic of the Congo) writers 70.55.86.83 13:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Using a category name that could relate to either or both of two separate countries is impractical. Postlebury 11:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Dominictimms 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 23:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Congolese short story writers to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo short story writers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename The only article is about a writer from the

Annandale 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 18:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The title of the first work by the only person in the cat is 'Kinshasa: Lettres Congolaises' which suggests Congolese is le mot juste.
  -- roundhouse 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What would you call people from the other Congo then? 70.55.86.83 13:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, or to Category:Congolese (Democratic Republic of the Congo) short story writers to remove ambiguity. 70.55.86.83 13:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Dominictimms 02:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to "white collar criminals" >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Prisoners convicted of white-collar crimes to Category:People convicted of white-collar crimes because many of these people do not remain perpetually imprisoned, and thus we cannot always call them "prisoners"; this naming makes the category broader, allowing anyone that has been convicted to be in the category and not merely people that are currently imprisoned. --Wassermann 20:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved from speedy as it is not eligible for speedy renaming. No vote. Abberley2 01:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.
  Annandale 02:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename to Category:White-collar criminals, which is shorter and better fits the conventions of Category:Criminals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Category:Fraudsters, unless I am missing some other type of crime that is covered. Haddiscoe 18:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:White-collar criminals per BHG and inasmuch as there are several crimes (e.g., embezzlement, bribery) that one might term white-collar that are not plainly encompassed by fraud (at least a criminal law term). Joe 18:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, while BHG's proposal has the advantage of brevity it also seems to connote a recurring rather than a one-time thing. Take Martha Stewart, the people convicted... formulation sounds more accurate than "white-collar criminal", especially in many of these articles the crime did not make the person notable. Carlossuarez46 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I see your point, and I wouldn't object to Category:People convicted of white-collar crimes if we used the same formulation for other sub-categories of Category:Criminals. But we have Category:Computer criminals rather than Category:People convicted of computer crime, Category:Bank robbers rather than Category:People convicted of bank robbery and Jeffrey Archer is in Category:Fraudsters rather than Category:People convicted of fraud, so it doesn't seem to me to be exactly neutral to use the "convicted" formulation only for the white collar bunch. ISTR losing the argument at a previous CfD about restricting these categories to convicted people, and unless some future CfD overturns that convention, it should apply to this category as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction: I mean that Jeffrey Archer is in Category:English perjurors rather than Category:People convicted of prejury. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In line with accuracy, these should all be renamed; there is some distinction in my mind between those whose notability is based on their criminality vs. otherwise notable people who have been convicted of crimes, but it may be difficult to separate the two in some cases. There may also be a Britishism vs. Americanism difference I am not comprehending, does "English perjuror" in common parlance, connote a single conviction or a habitual liar (under oath)? Many of these convictions categories - especially for crimes short of murder, where we have "mass murderer" or "serial murderer" to distinguish the once vs. the multiple offender - are more accurate to be people convicted of X; do we say that after someone's been convicted of drunk driving that they are forever labelled as a drunk driver, like we should all scatter in fear should we see them behind the wheel, rather than someone who has been convicted of drunk driving? Carlossuarez46 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Carlos, I agree that they they should all be renamed! But if that is to be done, it should be done for all the sub-categories-by-type of Category:Criminals. In the meantime, though, th convention for that category is not to use the "convicted of" construction in the name, and until that convention is changed through a group nomination, we should stick with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:White-collar criminals. Do not add "convicted", which would exclude far too many people who died, absconded etc. Dominictimms 02:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:White-collar criminals per BrownHairedGirl. Hawkestone 23:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Noh Matta Wat! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is not required for this material. Otto4711 00:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see comment below. --musicpvm 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-replies see counter-replies to musicpvm below in the NYC Blue cfd. Dugwiki 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Nick Cannon Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - other than the show article everything is for people associated with the show. This is overcategorization and the show doesn't need an eponymous category. Otto4711 00:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nashville Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - absent the improperly categorized performer articles, there is no need for this category to navigate the remaining material. Otto4711 00:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see comment below. --musicpvm 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-replies see counter-replies to musicpvm below in the NYC Blue cfd. Dugwiki 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northern Exposure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the items in the category do not require categorization for navigational purposes. Otto4711 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see comment below. --musicpvm 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-replies see counter-replies to musicpvm below in the NYC Blue cfd. Dugwiki 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Night Court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - one article, one sub-category, no need for this for navigating the material. Otto4711 00:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see comment below. --musicpvm 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-replies see counter-replies to musicpvm below in the NYC Blue cfd. Dugwiki 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article. Carlossuarez46 23:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Nanny (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the category is not required for navigating the material in it. Otto4711 00:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see comment below. --musicpvm 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-replies see counter-replies to musicpvm below in the NYC Blue cfd. Dugwiki 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article. Carlossuarez46 23:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NYPD Blue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - material in the category does not warrant it for navigational purposes. Otto4711 00:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I don't agree with this recent mass deletion of television series categories. They are extremely useful for navigation. Even if all the links are included in the main article, that does not make the category useless. I don't understand this need to make Wikipedia harder to navigate for users. Nothing is being accomplished by these deletions. --musicpvm 23:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Excessive categorization makes it hard for the category box to be useful. It gets cluttered. Doczilla 06:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply In addition to clutter Doc mentioned, there is also the aspect that duplicating navigation with little benefit to the reader significantly increases the amount of total maintainence to handle category changes. If something changes in a show, for example, no matter what else happens you will end up updating the show's main article. But when the show also has its own eponymous category, you have to update not only the main article but also potentially other articles within the same category and maybe even the category itself. This would be alright if there was a noticable navigational benefit to the reader, but in most cases there isn't because in most cases the reader can easily find all the associated article links within the show's main article. Thus the purpose of these deletions is to reduce unneeded editorial maintainence without negatively impacting a reader's ability to find appropriate articles related to the shows involved. Dugwiki 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article; I also agree with Doczilla's point. Carlossuarez46 23:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to westminster & delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, Nominated under a similar rationale as Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 3#Category:Norwood Places have undefined boundaries, whereas Boroughs have defined areas. Over categorisation could add to confusion. Regan123 00:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not a fair comparison at all as a Norwood category is clearly misleading due to there being South Norwood, West Norwood, Upper Norwood etc. whereas the borders of Marylebone are very clearly defined and it is an area known throughout the world whereas Norwood is not. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or maybe they are not clearly defined, as Gustav himself has admitted below. Postlebury 11:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC
  • Note Gustav has effectively withdrawn his opposition further on in the debate. AshbyJnr 10:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One system of local categorisation within London is sufficient, and using boroughs is less problematic. Abberley2 01:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gustav von Humpelschmumpel. Not only are the boundaries of Marylebone well-defined, they are wholly within the City of Westminster, so Abberley2 is wrong to suggest that this creates a second system of local categorisation. The category is well-populated, and is a useful grouping of articles related to a notable area of central London. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No he isn't. The main system is by borough, and this is part of a by-neighbourhood scheme, which isn't needed. I haven't checked all 32 boroughs, but this is the only neighbourhood category in Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea or Camden, and those are probably the three most likely to be subdivided. Haddiscoe 18:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you misunderstand my point. The main system is by indeed by borough, and Category:Marylebone is a sub-division of that borough category, not a new cross-borough "neighbourhood" category. Whether other boroughs are subdivided is a separate point, but there is an important difference between subdividing a category and creating an overlapping category such as "Category:Central London", which would include parts of the City of Westminster, the London Borough of Camden, and possibly the London Borough of Islington and the City of Westminster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Marylebone, like all London districts is not well defined (other than historically pre-1965). The boundaries are not followed consistently and cannot be verified. Recommend splitting the Westminster category by feature (Schools in Westminster, Buildings in Westminster etc.) not sub-district.MRSC • Talk 14:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it actually matter if the boundaries are not clearly defined (which I don't think they are not as I have a map which marks them)- surely what matters is that some places ARE most definitely in and associated with Marylebone. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't well defined pre 1965 either, at least not on a permanent basis. Historically the main division of London was into parishes, very few of which matched the modern neighbourhoods at any time, and of course they were frequently subdivided and otherwise amended. Haddiscoe 22:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The by-borough categories should not be subdivided by area, as contrary to BrownHairedGirl erroneous statement, this neighbourhood has no single fixed definition, and nor do most of the others. Haddiscoe 18:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you denying that these places are associated with Marylebone? The Borough categories are absolutely useless if I want to look at things near each other- something in one end of a Borough may be a great distance from something the other side- whereas I can arrive at one of these places and then look in the Marylebone category, then click on another place then click on the category and go to another place without clicking back to the Marylebone page every time. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many categories for London neighbourhoods would present definition problems. All the articles about each neighbourhood should be linked from its article. In any case Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Haddiscoe 22:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an "other crap might exist" argument rather than a problem with this category. I would be happy to see the removal of neighbourhood categories if they do not have reasonably clearly defined boundaries, and probably if they intersect borough boundaries; but the extent of Category:Marylebone can be simply and clearly defined as "the boundaries of the former Metropolitan Borough of St Marylebone". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The west half of Fitzrovia up to Cleveland Street used to be considered to be in Marylebone (possibly still is?) but as far as I can see that is the only one that really overlaps. The Metropolitan borough also included Lisson Grove, St John's Wood and Regent's Park (which used to be called Marylebone Park). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are passionate about this particular category, and you don't know what boundaries to use yourself! What about the hundreds of other problems that would exist with hundreds of other such categories? Postlebury 11:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now The Westminster category is much too big, with well over 200 articles in the main category (which already should exclude streets). It should be divided either by type or by neighbourhood. I don't think here is the place to discuss which. Either would work in my view, & local editors should decide. It should be a simple matter to ensure that whichever neighbourhood boundaries are used are defined and explained in the main articles. Johnbod 03:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Gustav von Humpelschmumpel doesn't know what boundaries to use himself for this one! If lots of people took the boundary setting issue seriously there would be endless disputes. But it's more likely that most of the boundary definition problems would not be addressed systematically, and we would have hundreds of overlapping and potentially misleading categories. Creating such a scheme would just not be worth the hassle.Postlebury 11:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My, you do worry! I can't see it myself. Most Westminster districts have most edges pretty clearly defined. But I repeat this should be a matter for the Wikiprojects & not here. Johnbod 21:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every single category is a matter for this page. There are no circumstances in which this page is not the proper place to make decisions about the fate of categories. Haddiscoe 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some regulars here who appear to revel in their ability to make snap judgements about complicated matters they have often considered in only the most superficial way; I am emphatically not one of them. Whilst this is the decision-making location for category changes, large matters should achieve concensus at the local page, and within the relevant project(s) before coming here. Johnbod 12:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That basically means that you are advocating debates being fixed, and the people on this page being disenfranchised. AshbyJnr 09:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment OK- admittedly after finding out about the Fitzrovia problem I can see how this could get confusing if we start making new categories based on boundaries that have changed over time. It seemed like a good idea at the time (obviously!). I won't mind as long as most of the places can be linked on the Marylebone article if they aren't already. Perhaps we can work out a way to allow people to search for places that are near to each other using the co-ordinate tags in articles? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Westminister category is not too big. There is no ideal category size. One set of local subcategories for London is quite enough. Postlebury 11:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any mixed category with over 100 members is probably too big in my book. Johnbod 21:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but I can see a few problems as pointed out above- i.e. do we put places in Fitzrovia in a Category:Fitzrovia, and Category:Marylebone because they have been considered to be in both at different times? What about streets where one side or one end is in one district and one side or end is in another (although I imagine there is sometimes overlaps for Boroughs on this too)? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear you go with the current usage. I'd be ready to have streets only in the Westminster sub-category for them, so just institutions etc by district 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Category:Westminster - As stated above, these locations within London have vague boundaries, whereas the boroughs do not. Therefore, it would be difficult to decide whether these locations fall within the neighborhood boundaries. For example, it is not quite clear whether Oxford Street itself falls within Marylebone (probably), but it is clear that Oxford Street lies within the City of Westminster. If Category:Westminster needs diffusion, this is not the way to do it. (Some of the other subcategories of Category:Westminster, such as Category:Buildings and structures in Westminster and Category:Education in Westminster, look like they would be more useful.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the North side of the Western end of Oxford St marks the start of Marylebone, and the South side of Mayfair, is surely one of the clearest of all Central London district boundaries. But other bits are the edges of Soho & Fitzrovia; that is why I think streets should all be in Westminster - you are then only left with streets demarcating borough boundaries. Personally I don't find Category:Buildings and structures in Westminster the most obvious place to look for the Groucho Club or Conservative Campaign Headquarters. Johnbod 12:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You could always create other categories for these entities (for example, Category:Organizations in Westminster). Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete There are several precedents for deleting such categories, which were based on the sort of the reasons discussed above. Osomec
  • It won't actually need merging as I didn't remove the Westminster category. It would be nice as I stated above to be able to search for places, streets etc. that are close to the one you are looking at- perhaps this facility can be developed in the future? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should think that would be technicaly possible, using the geographical co-ordinates, which are already present on many articles. LukeHoC 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per discussion above. LukeHoC 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep originally I felt that to introduce such a category would damage the general taxonomy for London as a whole. In conversation with Gustav and others, I realise that Marylebone has sufficiently differential characteristics to the rest of Westminster that there may be some value to having a separate category, providing it doesn't provide any kind of precedent for the rest of London. The other question is what damage does it do? It hasn't removed these places/buildings from their relationship with other categories in Westminster, merely signified a new relationship. Compared to other boroughs, it is sufficiently dense in objects/history to bear it. Kbthompson 13:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete One can make a case for any district having "sufficiently differential characteristics", indeed one can make a stronger such case for most other central London districts. Marylebone is one of central London's least distinctive districts. Hawkestone 23:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a bad precedent. AshbyJnr 09:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Wimbledon, London! Kbthompson 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nathanian 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Beorhtric 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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