Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 15

< February 14	February 16 >

February 15

Category:South African alternative country singers

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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 06:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:South African alternative country singers to Category:Alternative country singers

Nominator's rationale: Only one article, no possibility of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is one of six national sub-cats of
WP:OC#SMALL's criterion of being part of an established series. Why do you assert that there is "no possibility of expansion"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as part of broad international structures of musicians by genre. I too am curious as to how the nominator is certain that there are no other such singers nor will there ever be any more potential articles in this category. Alansohn (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have searched around for other South African alt-country singers and this is literally the only guy I found who fit the bill? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you search exhaustively enough to be absolutely certain that no other person will ever belong in the category, as opposed to Wikipedia only having one article right now? Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the general categorization of musicians by nationality and genre. See also Australian country guitarists. Eric444 (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If alt-country was being treated as a sub-genre of
WP:OC#SMALL, as a part of a series of categories intersecting singers by country and by genre. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I generally try to avoid creating a national occupation subcategory until I can personally file at least three people in it, but that's just me. At any rate, while I wouldn't have created this yet, I don't see a particularly compelling reason to delete it on size grounds — given that there's a practice of subcatting by nationality in most of the musician trees anyway, keep unless somebody can prove that the genre really, truly doesn't exist in South Africa except for this one guy. The lack of current articles on Wikipedia about other alt-country singers doesn't necessarily mean that no others exist. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Other notable, South African alternative country singers are Jaxon Rice (of The Diesel Whores) and Andy Lund (of Andy Lund and the Mission Men). I have done most of the editing on Jim Neversink. I am confused about the sub-categorization - at first I thought that a categorization as South African alt.-country singer would exclude him from a general search for alt.-country singers - but I guess that is not so? I think that given that the list is divided into countries, the SA category should stay. Where else would Neversink and the one Swedish singer be categorized? It is interesting to see how many countries are represented, with which number of entries. Sorry to Eric444 for undoing his recategorization; explanation above! SkaraB 15:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another notable SA alt.-country singer is Alex Sudheim of the band Lilo.

SkaraB 12:37, 21 February 2010 (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.

Category:Counterculture Hall of Fame inductees

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The Counterculture Hall of Fame exists as a promotional tool of the magazine High Times, as does the magazine's annual "Cannabis Cup" in Amsterdam at which the winner is inducted into the Counterculture Hall of Fame. To be a judge for Hall of Fame inductees, one has to pay $199 or $250. http://hightimes.com/cancup/

High Times appears to be riding on the coattails of long-dead musicians and poets in an attempt to reflect some of their light on the magazine. In essence, the category promotes the magazine, and the Counterculture Hall of Fame is adjudicated by popular vote and thus is not encyclopedia-worthy. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:OC#Award_recipients. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs
)
- Don't you mean no objection? Ucucha 00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooops! I do indeed. Now corrected, and thanks for pointing that out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicative of the tenuous article Counterculture Hall of Fame. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining characteristic, and the link BHG provided. Ucucha 00:04, 16 February 2010 (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.

Category:Dead at 27

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We already categorize people by year of their death; to categorize them by their age of death would be

overcategorization. — ξ ^xplicit 22:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Category Creator's rationale: Keep. The age of 27 is no normal age for famous people to die at. Not only is it quite young, many musicians have died at this age. There is an article called 27 Club for this reason. I think a category of this nature would be very suitable and it would ease referencing. --Cexycy (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also see this as overcategorization, but it must be noted that some people see this as a defining characteristic: see 27 Club. --Orlady (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is my point. If I was trying to make a category for each age, that would be absurd. I only intend to make one for the age of 27 for this reason. --Cexycy (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ×2 Hmm, that may be the case, but this seems best fit for a list, not a category. If this category were to be kept, categories like Dead by 45 or Dead by 12 will start popping up. To delete all but this category would just form a double standard; to allow the creation of all these categories would be overkill. — ξ ^xplicit 22:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a classic case of
WP:CSD#G4 as a re-creation of deleted content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

- Actually, there are quite a few teneous categories, like 1947 births, 1948 births, Living People, etc. If someone wants to make a Dead at 28 Category, dead at 29, etc, what does it really matter as long as it's all factual? Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? Ease of knowledge to all. --Cexycy (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Years of birth and death are fundamental biographical info: on many gravestones, they are the only info apart from the name, and it is standard in biographical articles to refer (for example) to "Jane Smith (1901–1976)". You also mentioned
    admin would have been quite entitled to delete this category on sight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - The living people category is redundant, as the talkpage as the BLP tag on it. Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think the talk page is tagged by bot via a reference to the presence of Category:Living people on the article page. The category comes first, then the talk page tagging. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Having the category on the article has the crucial function of allowing the use of the related changes function to monitor edits to BLP articles. That would not be possible if the category was only on the talkpage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial (and per the links provided by BHG). Cexycy, feel free to nominate other such trivial categories for deletion. Ucucha 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary and trivial. Speedy or SNOW delete is probably OK, as this has been deleted before under a slightly more narrow scope. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Birth and death date categories are generated by templates and are a normal category for all bio-articles. However, I do not think that age at death categories are very useful. We would need perhaps 110 of them, and some one would have to go through all the 1000s of bio-articles on deceased persons with known dates to add them: any volunteers? No, it is trivia. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial, arbitrary and done before. Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an arbitrary choice for a single category in this series. consensus and prior decisions say delete. however, if the creator REALLY wants to revive the debate on death by age, they would have to do so by other means, not by creating this category. its either all (age by years or decades, but either is trivial by my reckoning) or none. the article on a "Club" they reference really doesnt make this age that notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all arguments and guidelines brought above by my betters. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename People who died at the age of 27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.95.103 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2010 (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.

Peace treaties

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 and split as proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Some time ago the standard for Category:Treaties by country was changed from "FOOian treaties" to "Treaties of FOO". Now for consistency within Category:Peace treaties by country and Category:Treaties by country, I suggest changing these categories this format. Category:British peace treaties should probably be split as indicated to correspond with Category:Treaties of Great Britain and Category:Treaties of the United Kingdom, which I am willing to do manually. After renaming, some clean-up may need to be performed (which I will also do), e.g., with some of the Russian ones being placed in a Category:Peace treaties of the Soviet Union, and so forth. Note: These may be speediable; I wasn't sure if I should do it that way or this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to match standard used in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent and because the proposed titles are clearer: an "English peace treaty" could as well be a treaty written in English. Ucucha 00:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Nom. I am wondering whether the word "peace" is necessary. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All are subcategories of just plain old "treaties of FOO". Peace treaties end hostilities, but there are a lot of other types of treaties. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename all Debresser (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2010 (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.

Category:Parsons the New School of Design alumni

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 Category:Parsons School of Design alumni. — ξ ^xplicit 21:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parsons the New School of Design alumni to Category:Parsons The New School for Design alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the proper title of the school, at the parent article

Parsons The New School for Design. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Rename to match title of parent article. Ucucha 00:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is "Parsons the New School of Design" actually the name of the place, or is it "Parsons" whose marketing slogan is "The New School of Design"? It looks to me like one of those branding exercises where "Snodgrass PLC" markets itself as "Snodgrass. The solutions people". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a subdivision of the university whose name is The New School. Thus, this is apparently the actual name of the school. (Formerly, however, it was the Parsons School of Design, which presumably is the name under which almost all of the alumni attended the school.) --Orlady (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Similar naming issues could arise in connection with other New School divisions, notably
    Mannes College The New School for Music. --Orlady (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (the proper formal name) is at Rutgers University (a common name). - choster (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename to
Mannes College The New School for Music). --Orlady (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename to Category:Parsons School of Design alumni per Orlday, as the clearest suggestion so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 26 February 2010 (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.

Category:Tomar Kingdoms

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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename or something. I'm not sure what this category is actually for. The head article is Tomara dynasty, but the relation to that dynasty of the 3 articles in the category is unclear. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The articles are about cities, and two say that they were formerly part of a Tomar state. I don't think we categorize places by former states they were part of, so tentatively delete. Ucucha 16:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not think that BrownHairedGirl (an Irishwoman) or I (as an Englishman) are qualified to comment on this. I see no reason why places should not be categorised by the polity of which they were formerly part, but I would prefer to see categories of this kind being applied to articles (or categories) on districts, rather than those relating to individual towns or villages, which will not be kingdoms. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The category was blanked by its creator. I have reverted this, to restore the CFD notice, but such blanking is usually taken as a request by the creator to delete the page.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.Shyamsunder (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2010 (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.

Category:House of Clare

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 Category: De Clare family. From the discussion the strongest case is for a rename. The question is as nominated or as I'm closing. I see more support for the way this is being closed especially with the support for this after it was proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:House of Clare to Category:Clare family

Nominator's rationale: Rename. They are a family of gentry and peers, not a royal house. Category is under-populated, but the head article De Clare shows that it has plenty of scope for being populated. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed.. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, though "House of..." is in fact standard in these nob-squad categories, as in Category:French noble houses. But it is not the usual English terminology these days, & we should be rolling it back where we can. No objection to "De Clare". Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as de Clare - rationale - starting a new trend is, in my opinion, highly inadvisable. What would come next - The House of Marshal or The Marshal Family? possible solution: There could be a lead in the search engine from "Clare" to de Clare if someone were to search using just the name "Clare". It is already in place for fitz Gilbert. More appropriate for this venue. Technically, the founders were fitz Gilberts anyway. The name of Clare only started to be used sometime after Richard fitz Gilbert was awarded Clare Castle. What would we do with the fitz Gilberts? As to changing name to House of Clare or Clare Family, The Wiki search engine is already the in-place solution. (already accomplished) propose leave as de Clare - other possibilities seem inappropriate for the all these reasons given.Mugginsx (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply the category is already named "Clare", not "de Clare", so your "propose leave as de Clare" suggestion is meaningless.
  I have no objection to a rename to Category:de Clare family if that's what editors prefer; I just took "Clare" as the named currently used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure which article you are referring to. The only article about the Clare family is, at this moment, entitled de Clare. As one of the primary editors, and there will be others who will come in with their opinion, I think the re-naming would be inadvisable for the afore-mentioned reasons. Perhaps you are referring to another article? Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A category is not an article, and I am not referring to an article. This page is "Categories for discussion", not "Articles for discussion", and the proposal under discussion is to rename Category:House of Clare to Category:Clare family, not to rename an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leave unless there's a more compelling reason than "they're not royalty". I don't like "Clare family" because the family was known to history before it took its name from the place. —Tamfang (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current name calls them also calls them "Clare", so I don't see how that concern leads to a preference for one format over another. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a Sprachgefühl thing ... —Tamfang (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Mugginsx asked me to comment here.] It's usually accepted that category names should follow from article names. From that it would follow that this category should either be called Category:De Clares, which has the disadvantage of being perhaps rather non-obvious, or Category:De Clare family, which more clearly says what it is. On the whole I prefer that this be renamed to Category:De Clare family for reasons of clarity and because they are indexed under that name in the second volume (Medieval Ireland 1169–1534) of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Canvassing alert.
WP:CANVASSed this discussion, with a non-neutral message: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm agreeing to the renaming to 'Clare family'. The article should be renamed too, because its subject is a family and not a family name. PurpleHz (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding of what you were discussing. Still, I think you will agree it is always a good idea to get a consensus for any change, even in categories, from editors who have actually contributed to the article. Anyway my opinion is Clare family yes, House of Clare, no. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brown-Haired Girl - How dare you falsely accuse me of "Canvassing with a non-neutral message". If you had bothered to read any of those messages you would have seen that they ALL clearly contained the words, "whatever your opinion would you please weigh in on this discussion". That is completly contradictory to your accusation. Indeed, they clearly did not all agree with me, if you had noticed. Your message is incorrect and impolite and deserves a public apology to a public false accusation. These editors all had a perfect right to give their opinion and they clearly did just that, pro and con. As an administrator, you are supposed to be encouraging a free and open discussion. I would suggest that you read the rules on Wiki Civility before making any more untrue accusations. You might find yourself blocked by another administrator because what you did and said is about as anti-Wiki as you can get. Mugginsx (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You begin with "It seems crazy to me - the whole idea." That is quite clearly a non-neutral message. Ucucha 00:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Ahem.) Pardon me for butting in, but I too would say that your messages were clearly a non-neutral form of canvassing, for the reason given above. Objectively speaking, of course. A neutral message is completely neutral. The message left was not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - For the record, the editor involved has a history of disruptive behavior. During the editing of the piece on the Earls of Clare, instead of consulting, he followed much the same pattern as here, rushing around and stirring up the pot, ultimately filing a complaint against me for vandalism, which, all in all, was pretty laughable. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sadly, a disagreement in one article does not "a history of abuse make". The so-called complaint was because you made personal and abusive comments about me which are a matter of record should anyone care to check. At least one administrator agreed with me. Mugginsx (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I can forgive a lot of things on this site, including pettiness and even downright stupidity. But your behavior is in a different category. You have consistently shown a pattern of contempt towards other editors. As far as anyone agreeing with you, your allegation of vandalism against me was tossed out. You need to learn to respect others on this site. I've told you this before. If you don't start catching on, I hope you face sanctions. MarmadukePercy (talk)

That is patently untrue. My inter-relationship with editors are all on record and easily accessible to anyone. The fact is, that the only editors I have had trouble with are you and your friend. I try very hard to avoid the both of you and have done so successfully for many months until today. With any luck, I will not see your name or read your words again. I really feel sorry for you. Mugginsx (talk)

MarmadukePercy told me about this page and suggested i come here to offer my opinion on the renaming. I am the "friend" Mugginsx accuses of working with MP to cause him trouble. Unfortunately, i refuse to offer an opinion on this suggested renaming, though i have one, because i stay as far away as i can nowadays from Mugginsx: Accusations of vandalism, poor faith, and dictatorship have rather hurt me. I will point out, though, to answer Tamfang's point below, that there are a number of people who fit into this category quite well, under any of the names proposed. I just don't want to put them there myself. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 10:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category: De Clare family. I am profoundly unhappy about the "house of" format for categories for aristocratic (as opposed to royal) families. I am sorry to see that Brownhairedgirl is so sensitive over canvassing. It is always good when we get contributions from those involved, who probably do not regualrly contribute to CFD discussions. However, I would deplore partisan canvassing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the non-neutral canvassing which you deplore. Most CfD debates have only half-a-dozen contributors, so canvassing can easily tip the balance of a discussion. I agree that it's great to have contributions from people knowledgeable on an issue, and the best way to achieve that is to place a completely neutral notification at the relevant WikiProject(s), and/or list the discussion at the relevant subpage(s) of
  WP:DELSORT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: By the way, why is there a category with only one member? —Tamfang (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Category: De Clare family. This makes it perfectly clear who the category refers to. House is misleading as they were not royalty, whereas Clare on its own is too vague and lacking in precision.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:De Clare family per nominator (although this is definitely one of her less necessary nominations). Those who argue that it should be "De Clare have several compelling arguments. I'd like to stress the name of the main article as the decisive argument. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2010 (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.

Category:Human evolution fossils

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. While a merge was suggested, the response indicated that this could create more cleanup then a simple deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicates Category:Hominin fossils, which is more definite. No merger needed, since all articles are already doubly categorized. Ucucha 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Hominin fossils as duplicate. Merger is better than deletion, in case the dual-categorisation is incomplete when the CfD is closed, and the bots handle duplicates gracefully. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few articles herein (like Lantian Man) that should not be in either category; they are properly categorized in Category:Early species of Homo. (I should have mentioned this in my original statement, but forgot to.) Ucucha 15:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Hominin fossils was moved on the 15th from Category:Early hominids and this causes the overlap. Perhaps Hominin fossils is the better descriptive title though I would suggest the category description be changed to note that hominin fossils includes not only Hominins but also Hominin related fossil evidence (such as foot prints, tools, etc) which is covered by the more encompassing phrase "human evolution".--LittleHow (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I should perhaps have noted that. The Category:Early hominids contained individual fossils. I am not sure whether you are suggesting amending the category description of Category:Hominin fossils or merging Category:Hominin fossils into Category:Human evolution fossils, but I don't think keeping the "human evolution" cat is appropriate; it is simply too vague, as animals like Eomaia, Tiktaalik, and Morganucodon, which were likely at least close to the evolutionary line that led to humans, could justifiably all be included. "Hominin fossils" clearly defines the scope, and foot prints etcetera are also fossils of hominins (trace fossils to be precise). Ucucha 12:10, 16 February 2010 (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.

Category:Air America Radio

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/merge . Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Air America Radio to Category:Air America (radio network)

Nominator's rationale: Network has not been called "Air America Radio" for a while. The company's final name, and what everyone called it anyway, was just "Air America", so requesting to rename this category to match parent article's title. (And yes, I am aware that Category:Air America is free, but it seems inappropriate to use considering the dab page located on Air America.) SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in accordance with title of parent article. Ucucha 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2010 (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.

Category:E-mail Archiving and Compliance

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/merge . Vegaswikian (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:E-mail Archiving and Compliance to Category:E-mail

Nominator's rationale: Merge per

WP:OC#SMALL as excessively narrow. If kept, rename to Category:E-mail archiving and compliance to fix capitalisation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge as proposed; too small and not very likely to grow. Ucucha 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriate as a subcategory to Category:E-mail as is - there is a much longer list of solutions (eg smarsh, mimecast, etc) and continued innovation/news to be included (eg legal action noted in a company's history section, laws enacted, etc). Rename as suggested. Brentyoung (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2010 (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.

Category:Sailboat names

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 7#Category:Sailboat names. Good night, and good luck. postdlf (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Sailboat names to Category:Sailboats

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be about sailboats, not their names. There was an unresolved discussion in 2005 (during which Category:Sailboats was created) and apparently there may be some disagreement about what kinds of vessels should go into this category, but nobody seems to agree that the "names" is necessary, any more than we put articles about people into Category:People names or articles about songs into Category:Song names. If there's still any dispute about the type of vessel, I hope we can all at least agree that "Sailboats" is a better title than "Sailboat names." Propaniac (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Yachts by name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, HMS Victory is a yacht? Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support 'yachts by name'. HMS Victory would go in 'warships by name' or similar appropriate category. Boatman (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to do the sorting? Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Yachts by name. Category:Sailboats is the top level category and Category:Sailboat names / Category:Yachts by name index individual yachts via their names. Sail boats have numerous attributes:- name, class, construction, type, use etc etc. We should not bundle everything into one large category. We need to keep separate categories so that the reader can quickly home in on the info they require. Boatman (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed that Category:Sailboats was the correct category because it looked like most of the items in that category were specific vessels, the same kind of article currently in Category:Sailboat names. The same seems to be true of Category:Yachts and Category:Yachts by name. Am I understanding correctly that all those articles about specific vessels currently in Category:Sailboats and Category:Yachts are not supposed to be in that category? Propaniac (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A very good point! There are indeed overlaps in some of these categories. I will take some time out and see what we have re categories and make some suggestions for consideration. Boatman (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If these pairs of categories are not simply duplicates of each other (that is to say, if there is an actual difference between Category:Foo and Category:Foo by name), I have no objection to renaming the nominated category Category:Sailboats by name or merging to Category:Yachts by name. My original nomination was based on the perception that Category:Sailboats and Category:Sailboat names were serving the same purpose. Propaniac (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete Please understand that "sailboat" is a US-only term that to UK and I imagine other English-speaking ears rather implies something 15 feet long. This category aims to include all articles on individual sail-powered vessels including commercial freighters and warships. Rename to Category:Sailing ships or vessels or something similar, if the category is in fact useful - which it may be. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then nominate Category:Yachts by name for deletion. All ships are listed by name so why to we need a category by name? Is this intended to be a super category that includes all sailboats or all yachts? This seems like it may well be OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The category is badly named and has a daft bit of introductory text, but it is clearly intended to categorise individual sailing boats rather than general articles about sailing boats or about types of sailing boats. If this category is deleted, then the articles in it will no longer categorised under
  Fish class sloop. The naming and structure of these categories is currently a big mess, but the solution lies in sorting the articles into more appropriate categories, rather than just pressing the delete button. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Rename to Category:Sailing vessels and place under Category:Sailing, Category:Ships by type and Category:Wind-powered vehicles. Move Category:Sailing ships and Category:Sailboats under this one. That seems to express the correct hierarchical relationship between these categories. This category is not about names, but it is about sailing vessels, regardless of size or function. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2010 (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.

Category:Editors with a pro-Wikipedia bias

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can't quite figure out what exactly this category is supposed to be for, since presumably anyone who spends some of their time editing wikipedia has some sort of bias in favour of the project, unless they are vandals. So this seems to be irrelevant to collaboration between editors, which is the only purpose of such categories BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The category could more accurately be called "Editors who declare they have a pro-Wikipedia bias", but such declarations are not verifiable and could themselves be the result of
social desirability bias. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Transcluded by User:RomaC/PR. I am not so sure about deletion; true, it is a somewhat pointless category, but it is not divisive, so why bother deleting it? Ucucha 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because, as you noted, it is a somewhat pointless category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are lots of things that go on in userspace that I would consider pointless, but we do not delete them because, supposedly, they help foster a collaborative environment that facilitates Wikipedia growth. Ucucha 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good bias and I wish others would join it. Specially Jalapenos. :D Ucucha is also right, the nom smacks of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT: what the nom sees as pointless and redundant actually is seen as otherwise, in particular in topic areas were there is a demonstrable (as in ArbCom-banhammering demonstratable) anti-wikipedia bias on the part of groups of editors. It is both a statement of purpose and signal to editors to join. That it hasn't caught up is another matter, but this is not a reason to delete. Something being seen as pointless by editors is not a good reason for deletion, because one editor's "pointless" is another's "point". I do get the point, and its an important one. --Cerejota (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Agreed on the
WP:IDONTLIKEIT front here and no policy justification for deletion is offered. This category serves as an aid to navigation and collaboration for those who don't think the category is pointless. Alansohn (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Alansohn, there is a policy reason, as stated in the nomination: that this category is irrelevant to collaboration between editors. Cerejota's comment clarifies the situation further, by explaining that it the category is intended to have a factionalising effect. The fact that you don't like that policy reason does not make this a
WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. The factionalising intent is a very good reason to delete the category, as was done with lots of other similar categories, most recently Category:Unbiased Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken, and Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
There are lots of categories you don't like. I understand that and am unimpressed with the precedents you offer which have no relevance here. I'm not sure why we bother dealing with these categories at CfD, but their removal is far more divisive and causes more disruption than the oft-repeated attempts to keep Wikipedia clear of any such groups. As this is a clear aid to collaboration, the supposed policy argument is equally irrelevant. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, your personalisation of yet another discussion is unnecessary. It's a pity that that when an editor cites a policy reason you can't simply accept in good faith that it is nominated for a policy reason, even if you disagree with the policy or its interpretation.
As to your claim that the category aids collaboration, a category which we are told is designed to divide is a tool of division, not collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "policy reason" is irrelevant here. This has nothing to do with "personalization". Alansohn (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When someone offers a policy reason for an action you disagree with, alleging
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a form of personalisation. Now, if you can bear to try discussing the substance, why exactly do you think that the policy reason is "irrelevant"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Please read the discussion before attacking. I was not the one who mentioned that
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an issue. I merely agreed with another editor who you have chosen to ignore. Please don't personalize this. It's not about you. Alansohn (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll try again. If you can bear to try discussing the substance, why exactly do you think that the policy reason is "irrelevant"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, Cerejota makes it clear that this is a divisive category. We don't need factionalization. Ucucha 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a divisive category, eh? Lol—this discussion so far seems to put a lie to that. This category doesn't foster positive collaboration in order to build an encyclopedia. We are all striving for a
neutral point of view in building the encyclopedia, not pro-anything. For instance, it would be inappropriate to write with a pro-Wikipedia bias when that article includes information about a dispute or controversy that involved Wikipedia itself. Just as we would delete Category:Wikipedians with a pro-Armenian bias or Category:Wikipedians with a pro-Tom Cruise bias, we should also delete this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This category is useless, as any Wikipedia editor who considers himself to be working to improve Wikipedia is already in the set. Basically, only vandals will not be included. Might as well be the Category:Wikipedia editors who are not vandals. Ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless. It does seem to be (at least potentially) divisive. It brings to mind the so-called deletionist/inclusionist factions, as such labels can (and are) easily used as prejoratives. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear what a "pro-Wikipedia bias" is. Not conductive of editor collaboration. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2010 (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.

Category:Wikipedians who are recipients of the Commendation Medal

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. I'll note that at this time the category is empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Good for them, and they are quite entitled to be proud of their achievements, but this is irrelevant to collaboration amongst editors. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a userspace category. We have all kinds of them, intendended to foster collaboration and interest among editors by highlighting their real life achievements and accomplishments. What you could call flair. I wouldn't say it is irrelevant to collaboration: declaring this can help, for example, to locate knowledgeable editors on the topic of military medals, military history, etc. This seems
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the rationale for deletion is hence unconvincing. --Cerejota (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - It is a fact that those who have served in the military, regardless of branch or even country, have a tendency to speak the same language, simply because so many experiences transcend borders. The Russians have a proverb: 'A soldier is a soldier is a soldier; only the color of the button is different'. Civilians and military people lack a certain commonality that is shared by service members even from different nations. This is something that I have experienced time and again, first hand, over many years.
This can have an enormous effect upon collaboration between editors, especially as it relates to military-themed articles: If I happen to peruse an article or section on, for example, non-judicial punishment as it affects the lower ranks in various armies, I am more apt to believe that an editor is knowedgeable if I can check that his bonafides are 'up to snuff', and userboxes and user categories are two ways of confirming this. This could also, obviously, affect whether I collaborate with said editor on a particular project. Add to it that this category is no less significant than others that cover, for instance, an editors national origin, sex, age or religion. To be sure, user categories are reflections of editor individuality, and, as such, have validity. If this one is to be deleted, then all should be deleted. No exceptions.Lyricmac (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the goal of user categories is to foster collaboration between editors in building an encyclopedia, this is probably not the way to go about it. It would be much easier to just have a category for those who served in such-and-such a military. There is no need for user categories that express this kind of puffery, legitimate pride, or whatever you want to call it. This information could also just be placed on a user page as text; there are unlikely to be very many users who would qualify for it anyway and therefore the category will not serve a very useful purpose in grouping multiple users with the same characteristic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear aid to collaboration among those who have been so honored. Alansohn (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How? The fact of holding a medal doesn't necessarily mean that the person has any expertise in the history of the medal, or any other issue relevant to writing about it on wikipedia (the state-issued medal I hold came with a pile of explanatory blurb about it, but like the other people I know with the same award I only read the first page of it before falling into a deep sleep which ended only when I was kissed by a prince). If editors want to collaborate, then the appropriate user category would be Category:Wikipedians interested in the Commendation Medal. I'd be happy to keep the category if it was renamed to a generic form like that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pace Alansohn, Lyricmac's comments make it clear that the intention of this category is not to foster collaboration, but rather to ensure that only an in-crowd of editors edit particular articles. Likely to be used to encourage and promote the inclusion of argument from personal experience. The category is therefore not merely unhelpful in our work of building a
neutral point of view encyclopedia but is in fact likely to impede this effort. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
To the contrary, Angusmclellan, my comment was meant to convey my belief that articles should be written by those who are knowledgeable in a certain field, eg, that technical articles about plants should be written by botanists, articles on Mozart symphonies by musicians and military articles by those who are most familiar with the subject, whether militarists or ex-military. If I need to reference Culloden, the BEF or Gettysburg, I would like to know that the author of the book that I am reading or the editor of the Wiki article has at least a modicum of experience with the subject matter. Cliqueish? Perhaps to an extent, but a natural reaction considering that those who really know a subject intimately are generally a minority of the whole (not all wikipaedians are botanists). And no, often that does not include me, militarily speaking-my disciplines run in other directions. Therefore, I am dependent upon either trusting that Bruce Catton or Douglas Southall Freeman know and can write clearly about the American Civil War, or checking their 'bonafides'. Hence the use of user categories and userboxes. What is so nefarious about that?--Lyricmac (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lyricmac, that's an interesting principle, and although it does seem to me to clash a bit with the principle that what matters is
reliable sources rather than original research or personal experience. But if you go down that route, winning the medal is no guarantee of expertise in the subject, and per Angusmclellan's comment it may actually be a way of recruiting editors likely to have a particular perspective on the subject. If you want expertise on the Battle of Culloden, look for someone who has studied it, rather than for the personal experience of an editor who was one of thee poor bloody infantry running around getting shot at. If you want NPOV, stay well away from both sets of participants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia is not a social club. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you wish; I wash my hand of the situation. Wishing you the best of the day,--Lyricmac (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - user categories are pretty harmless. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we accept the premise that some user categories are useful for collaboration, then the proliferation of ones that are not useful for collaboration is harmful because it has the effect of diminshing the usability of the user category system. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or close as moot (see here). I believe that Lyricmac's creation was in good faith, but I believe that this category does not, in the end, foster encyclopedic collaboration. Expertise in a subject area, or the fact that the military experience transcends borders, may justify the existence of categories like
all-or-nothing approach is not justified, since it is perfectly valid to judge the usefulness of each grouping individually, and to delete those groupings that serve no collaborative function and keep those that do. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It is a seperate category ... why? ... not all wiki's have this medal or belong into this category. Those who are recipients of the Commendation Medal have earned it and it should remain.--Virusunknown (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of the category in no way suggests that the Medal's recipients did not "earn it"; however, Wikipedia is generally
not the place to honor individuals' military achievements, sacrifices, or recognitions. Does the category fulfill any function related to the encyclopedia? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:53, 21 February 2010 (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.

Category:Famous polar bears

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: Keep. This close allows this categroy to be renominated at any time for a different target, most likely Category:Individual polar bears. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous polar bears to Category:Notable polar bears

Nominator's rationale: Transferred from Wikipedia:Requested moves Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this fits any of the speedy criteria. In fact, it's part of an established category tree (Category:Famous animals). Jafeluv (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We might consider whether "notable" is a more appropriate word than "famous" for this category tree for individual animals with articles. Ucucha 15:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Notable" is no use - this is always removed here, on the grounds that all subjects that escape Afd are by definition notable (until proven otherwise). Category:Individual polar bears would be the way to go, but all the tree (37 sub-cats) should be addressed, & I think "famous" is ok myself. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - if you want to nominate the categories for Famous->Individual renaming, I have made a full list here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or discuss
talk) 17:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is a category about specific animals who are definingly notable for their choice of being polar bears and their choice of pursuing fame and fortune in the big city zoos. Category:Polar bears would be perfect if it weren't about the species as a whole. Something is needed to uniquely identify this as referring to individual animals. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have a general problem of nomenclature which applies to all sorts of categories: where most of the articles in the category tree are about "types of foo", how do we name the category for "individual examples of foo"? We really need a more general answer to this question, because while Category:Famous polar bears is better than Category:Notable polar bears, it's still not quite conveying the category's purpose. The discussion below about Category:Sailboat names is really about the same issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't it be "individual polar bears" ? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. An upmerge to Category:Polar bears would be inappropriate, sicne that is largely about the speciies in general, rather than individual members of it. I am indifferent whether the qualifier should be "famous", "notable", "indvidual", or whatever. We do not usually have "notable" or "famous" categories because NN people (or bears) will not have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Category:Individual polar bears would be an improvement. If we rename it to that, the rest of this category tree should of course also be renamed. Ucucha 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - if you want to nominate the categories for Famous->Individual renaming, I have made a full list here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I think the idea of changing "Famous" to "Individual" has promise; see Category:Individual trees. Any general change, however, should probably start at Category:Famous organisms. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - if you want to nominate the categories for Famous->Individual renaming, I have made a full list here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 22 February 2010 (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.

Category:Military Friendly University

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per

WP:OC#TRIVIA as a non-defining or trivial characteristic.
The inclusion of a university in somebody's list of universities-good-for-X may just about merit a mention in the article on a university, but it probably isn't enough for a list, and is definitely not a defining characteristic which requires a category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree with deletion. I told the category's creator that I intended to bring the category here for deletion, but first I wanted to give him a chance to start fixing things. He can create an article about "Military-friendly universities" (a designation for U.S. institutions that was created by a proprietary business, but apparently based on criteria -- and that has been publicized by every university thus designated). --Orlady (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to delay deletion. A list of the articles in the category can be placed in the editor's userspace to allow them to add a mention in the articles if they want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understood. However, having been accused in the past of incivility because of actions like nominating unsourced articles for deletion, I have concluded that it is generally desirable to give inexperienced good-faith contributors a chance to rectify a situation before confronting them with an XfD process. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining characteristic. Ucucha 15:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
WP:OC#TRIVIA argument is a good one. Categorizations of article space shouldn't be trivial or arbitrary. "Military Friendly" is also an ambiguous and possibly non-neutral classification - who defines what being "military friendly" is? --Cerejota (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
- Given that it's an American list of American universities, I kinda suspect that the intention might not be to identify places of learning which give a warm welcome to Taliban fighters from Afghanistan, Somali warlords, veterans of the VietCong, or former soldiers of the Red Army. But maybe I just got a suspicious mind.
  If there was anyone interested in keeping the category, it might be worthwhile looking for some neutral analysis of what this list means, in the shape of sort of friendly to which military, but since everyone agrees it can go, that's probably not needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a defining characteristic of the universities in question. Alansohn (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suspect that the category's name is a code word for "American universities who allow U.S. military recruitment on campus despite anti-gay discrimination by the military". Some universities prohibit on-campus recruitment by prospective employers who engage in improper discrimination, and presumably "military-friendly universities" are those institutions who are willing to make an exception for the U.S. military. Arguably, whether a university has a corporate conscience or not is as valid a category as the name of the athletic conference it belongs to. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - You guess wrong, Eastmain. See this press release announcing the list and this report on the current list. The claimed focus is on schools that recruit (or at least accommodate) current U.S. military and veterans. A lot of the schools on the list are distance education providers that don't have campuses, much less have policies on military recruitment on campus, but the list also includes traditional schools. The cynic in me is sure that all of the schools on the list are well aware that today's veterans get generous educational benefits -- and their tuition checks don't bounce. Regardless of the selection criteria, it's not a defining characteristic of these schools and it's not a good basis for a category. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Interesting observation, but, I can't see an NPOV way of incorporating that perspective in the category structure. Category:Universities which do not create an exception to their LGBT non-discrimination policies for organisations engaged in killing people would be a much more interesting category, but it would be about as NPOV as a party political broadcast. Category:Universities with a corporate conscience sounds a lot more neutral, but would be highly subjective: what sort of issues are included in assessing that corporate conscience? Who makes the judgement? What about a universities which pays peanuts to its cleaning staff and allows animal research, but makes discrimination an unbreakable principle?
  However, there could be a very interesting article on this topic, which could meet NPOV requirements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I DISAGREE WITH DELETION. There are thousands of schools that are considered military-friendly every year. In fact, each year 100s of colleges in the United States based upon information gathered from different schools that applied for the distinction and were selected. Only, the top colleges and universities are selected based upon criteria such as number of military students, availability of financial aid, number of military contracts, accreditation, and more. Those selected are institutions that open their arms to active duty and non-active duty military. But almost all bend over backwards to offer additional support and consideration to members of the military and their families. So, I do believe this is an entirely "new" category and is not a proprietary business (Military Advanced Education is a federal government's magazine published by the US military...our military belongs to the people!!!) but listed as a wonderful resource for our men and women of the U.S. military armed forces attending Military Friendly Universities. So, to categorize it as anything else but its own separate category is misleading and incorrect to those colleges that do not have this title. I disagree with speedy deletion and vote it should stay since there are many other colleges that factor into this new category. --Virusunknown (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- ...wrote, "who defines what being "military friendly" is?" Answer: Our U.S. Military does...you know those people that uphold our constitution, rights, and freedoms. I may be new and still learning but doesn't Wikipedia's categories help you to browse through articles organized by topic. Is everyone really ready to delete this legit category. Here is some food for thought...instead of quickly deleting everything why not do the research as I have and help correct the newbie's mistakes. The military-friendly category is its own topic of category. Seriously, wiki has a category named University Of Chess with only 1 member and its not marked fro deletion but you want to delete this one that has over 100+ members. Are we not here to make the articles better? My agenda is simply to perform research, report, and publish the "facts". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virusunknown (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you will find that the people of Vietnam, for example, are not exactly thrilled at the role of the US Military in defending their freedoms, nor are the former inhabitants of
    Neutrality is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and a category about "upholding our constitution, rights, and freedoms" is just as inappropriate as one taking the opposite view. Improve the articles, but don't use the category system to push a point-of-view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 22 February 2010 (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.

Category:Independent politicians in County Kildare

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/merge the first one. The second was deleted as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

Nominator's rationale: Merge both. Ireland is not a big enough country to require splitting the sub-cats of Category:Irish politicians by party in categories by each of the 26 counties, and there are no other categories of Irish-politicians-by-party-and-country. Note that the only politicians in Ireland categorised by county are local councillors, so there is no need for a dual upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note.
WP:AFD: Paddy Kennedy, Pádraig McEvoy, Seamie Moore. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Upmerge as unnecessary subcategorization. Ucucha 15:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -
talk) 23:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Upmerge both per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2010 (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.

Category:United States environmental law

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States environmental law to Category:Environmental law in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with others in the same series and with the general form of WP page names. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at Category:United States law, I don't see that one form is dominant over the other. There are a lot of "FOO law in the United States" but also a lot of "United States FOO law". The subcategories are Category:United States environmental case law and Category:United States federal environmental legislation. Would we prefer consistency with the others in Category:Environmental law by country or worry more about consistency within the U.S. structure alone? It's a classic chestnut. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should all be changed to reflect convention? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But then the question is—what is the convention, and what if it's in two trees with conflicting conventions? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the article and cat names I have seen are of the form "Subject in/of Country". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; in mentioning conflicting conventions, I was just referring back to the fact that there are a lot of "United States foo law" categories if you pursue it down the other tree. Perhaps not dominant enough to call it a "convention", though. On balance I think the proposed change is probably a good idea for the reasons outlined below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by category creator. I would say that "United States environmental law" suggests federal law, while "environmental law in the United States" could be seen as more inclusive of both state and federal environmental law. So given that there is a distinct subcategory expressly for federal environmental legislation, maybe it's better to go with the more inclusive name. But either naming form is acceptable to me. postdlf (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems convention would have thaem named as "Category:Environment law in NameOfStateHere". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator, and per postdlf's observation about inclusivity of both state and federal environmental law. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The proposed title appears to be better for the reasons postdlf noted. Many of the other categories in Category:United States law should be renamed in the same way. Ucucha 16:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more clearly describe the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2010 (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.

Category:Reading instruction by country

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. While a suggestion of renaming the target has been made, it isn't clear that there's concensus for it, nor what the new name should be; this can, however, be discussed separately. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Reading instruction by country to Category:Learning to read

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Almost all articles in category in question are about reading methods in general, not reading by country -- the articles have no relation with the category. azumanga (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and as unnecessary subcategorization; the parent category is fairly small. Ucucha 16:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom - 'by country' implies either subcats (not present) or articles such as 'Reading instruction in Foo' (not present).
talk) 17:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per nom. Changed my mind -- see below. Not only is the subject matter not country-specific, but there's no indication of a country or countries in the contents of Category:Reading instruction by country. (There are no subcategories there -- were country-specific categories deleted previously?) --Orlady (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Rename This category was created in the hope that articles from other countries would be included to distinguish primarily between learning to read in the USA education system and the UK education. But I have since stopped being an active Wikipedia editor, too stess ful with my disability. But having looked that the other category both categries should be merged and renamed "Learning to read in in the USA" , especially as most of the article are USA specific, and do not universally apply outside of the USA. dolfrog (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Learning to read and rename the destination category - Changed my mind (see earlier comment above.) Upon reflection, I don't think "Learning to read" accurately describes the category contents, since (1) the articles deal with both the teaching and learning of reading (not just learning), and (2) the articles in the categories are not limited to initial learning "to read," but also include topics related with improving the student's reading ability. (Moreover, although some of the articles in the "by country" category are US-centric, articles like Jolly Phonics are specific to other countries, and the subject matter of articles like Orton-Gillinghamis not necessarily specific to one country. Accordingly, I don't agree with Dolfrog's recommendation.) A better name for the destination category might be "reading learning and instruction", but that likely is not the best name. --Orlady (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2010 (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.

Category:WikiProject help

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: speedy delete per

author's request. — ξ ^xplicit 02:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Badly thought out ambiguous name , no longer needed, empty. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:44, 15 February 2010 (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.