Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was listify --Kbdank71 16:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anon user proposed a rename to Category:Lexx worlds (but used the RM tag rather than CFR). Abstain. Radiant_>|< 00:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Listify. Currently popular, if regional, TV program fan material only. Not encyclopedic. 12.73.196.191 15:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the small length of most articles in the cat, and given WP:FICT, I concur with Listify. Radiant_>|< 09:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and list. siafu 13:36, 2 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: They are known as U.S. Highways, not U.S. highways. This is because any highway in the United States can be a U.S. highway. The capital H is needed to diffrentiate. I believe SPUI has mentioned that we could put a bot on this task. Any duplicate categories would be deleted.

List of categories that need to be renamed:

• U.S. highways in Alabama
• U.S. highways in California
• U.S. highways in Colorado
• U.S. highways in Connecticut
• U.S. highways in Delaware
• U.S. highways in District of Columbia
• U.S. highways in Georgia
• U.S. highways in Idaho
• U.S. highways in Illinois
• U.S. highways in Indiana
• U.S. highways in Iowa
• U.S. highways in Kansas
• U.S. highways in Kentucky
• U.S. highways in Louisiana
• U.S. highways in Maine
• U.S. highways in Maryland
• U.S. highways in Massachusetts
• U.S. highways in Michigan
• U.S. highways in Minnesota
• U.S. highways in Mississippi
• U.S. highways in Montana
• U.S. highways in Nebraska
• U.S. highways in Nevada
• U.S. highways in New Jersey
• U.S. highways in New York
• U.S. highways in North Carolina
• U.S. highways in North Dakota
• U.S. highways in Ohio
• U.S. highways in Oregon
• U.S. highways in Pennsylvania
• U.S. highways in Rhode Island
• U.S. highways in South Carolina
• U.S. highways in South Dakota
• U.S. highways in Tennessee
• U.S. highways in Utah
• U.S. highways in Vermont
• U.S. highways in Virginia
• U.S. highways in Washington
• U.S. highways in West Virginia
• U.S. highways in Wisconsin
• U.S. highways in Wyoming

Category that needs to be deleted:

• U.S. highways in New Jersey
• U.S. highways in New Hampshire

Category that are fine as they are:

• U.S. Highways in Florida
• U.S. Highways in New Jersey

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't care about the capital, but please spell out the abbrev. Radiant_>|< 00:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are better known as U.S. Highways. Witness U.S. Highway 101, U.S. Highway 12, List of U.S. Highways, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Federal highways in <State>. Federal is the correct word, other Wikipedian articles notwithstanding. 12.73.198.41 02:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are known as U.S. Highways. I have only heard them called Federal Highway x once or twice. U.S. Highway 101 for example. In Mexico they are federal highways. They are referred to by the AASHTO as U.S. Highways and the U.S. Highway System. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, how come they are operated and maintained by the US Dept of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration? 12.73.196.191 15:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because a federal highway can be a U.S. Highway or a Interstate Highway. They are two different systems. Just like Congress- the congressmen are more accurately known as senators or representatives. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - the acronym in this case is the typical usage (the spelled out version being so rare as to be virtually unknown). "Federal highways" would include all federally supported highways, not just the "U.S. Highways" (U.S. Highways being the ones with symbols like File:US 199.gif, as opposed to US Interstate Highways with symbols like File:Interstate5.png). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom - TexasAndroid 14:39, 31 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miscapitalized and a needless duplicate of Category:Economic theories. - SimonP 21:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the page clearly states, there is a difference: An economic theory describes how the economy (supposedly) works. An economic ideology is a moral position on how an economy should be structured. Mjk2357 23:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to correct miscapitalization. It's a good category and should be kept. -- LGagnon 00:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Renaming completed. Thanks for the support. Mjk2357 02:41, 1 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps category name in line with the names of the articles. Our Phellap 19:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename CalJW 11:58, 30 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps category name in line with the names of the articles. Our Phellap 19:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename CalJW 11:58, 30 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps category name in line with the names of the articles. Our Phellap 19:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename CalJW 11:58, 30 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for speedy, but unfortunately there is a single local who believes that Hong Kong should be exempt from the standard for reasons which are unclear and surely without merit. The size and structure of the government of Hong Kong are of no relevance whatsoever to the application of this convention. This is just a tidying up exercise. At the moment it sticks out like a sore thumb. Bhoeble 19:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Guess we're talking about two things here (see the discussion on speedy above and a related previous nomination). It's ambiguous if category:Government of Foo is topical, i.e., everything related to the governmental aspects there, or specific to an organ, which is the case of Hong Kong. It's complicated by the fact that for some countries the word government refers to all three branches, while for some others it's specifically meaning the executive. The Government of Sweden article and category:government of Sweden illustrate the differences. The article talks about the executive, whereas the category contains articles about the law courts in Sweden. As for Hong Kong, compare the differences between government of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Government, with government of Scotland and Scottish Executive, or the case of Sweden above. — Instantnood 04:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What? SchmuckyTheCat 06:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename It should cover all aspects like the others. Trying to use fundamental top tier categories in national menus for different purposes in different cases just creates confusion. CalJW 11.51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hmm... the word "government" under this structure is American usage (say, compare Government of the United Kingdom and government of the United States, or category:Government of the United Kingdom and category:government of the United States). What if turning category:government of Hong Kong a parent category for category:Hong Kong Government, the Legislative Council and the Judiciary? — Instantnood 13:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't American usage. No one from the UK, Canada, Australia, India etc has objected to the names of the government categories for those countries so far as I know. I made many of the government categories, and I'm British (but I was only following the established practice).
    • This organisation chart [1] on info.gov.hk is headed "Organsation Chart of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" not "of the Hong Kong Government". The article is at Government of Hong Kong and gives the full form. Based on a google search the "of" form is predominant, and furthermore it appears to be more predominant in sites based in Hong Kong that in sites based elsewhere. "Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" is used on the sites of the government entities I have looked at, but there is no need for anything so cumbersome because the national government categories are not named after an organisation. Rather they group aricles relevant to a topic just as the literature, history etc categories do, including where appropriate those about government matters before the country in question acquired its present form of government. The entity officially called "Hong Kong Government" appears to exist only in your imagination.
    • There is no justification whatsoever for your preference given that "Hong Kong Government" is not the official name of the executive branch, and it would create confusion to have two categories with such similar names. Furthermore your alternative proposal is actually a move towards the "American" usage to which you say you object. CalJW 22:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" is the full name. "Hong Kong Government" is the conventional short form, and was its old name. A search for sites under .gov.hk gives 26,300 for "Hong Kong Government", and 13,500 for "Government of Hong Kong". It's not for you or I to decide on our own its short name based on its full name, and disregard which is the more common one.
        "Government" in this case refers only to the executive branch. (And you failed to explain why the legislative and judicial branches of the UK are not grouped under category:Government of the United Kingdom, as the American counterpart do (category:government of the United States).) If we have to match with the existing practice of the categories of the US and many other countries to cover more than the executive arm, then create category:government of Hong Kong, and keep category:Hong Kong Government as a subcategory solely for the executive organ. — Instantnood 07:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Osomec 16:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. --Kbdank71 19:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is for topics related to the executive organ, which conventional short name is "Hong Kong Government". We can create category:government of Hong Kong to cover topics on the executive, legislative and judicial arms. — Instantnood 21:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The government categories are not based on official names, and you have effectively admitted that this isn't an official name in any case. You will have the option of reorganising the category after it has been renamed, but I think it will be better if you don't. CalJW 00:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be much better to reorganise as what I have suggested, i.e. group category:Hong Kong Government, Legislative Council and Judiciary under category:government of Hong Kong. — Instantnood 10:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Restructured. The original renaming proposal is no longer necessary. — Instantnood 10:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 13:36, 2 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

subcats were Military of People's Republic of China and Military of Taiwan. Both subcats were in the parent category Militaries AND this cat was in the parent cat as well. Confusing and just a place for people to edit war about whether the PRC or the ROC controls "China". SchmuckyTheCat 18:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC) SchmuckyTheCat 18:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This category is for everything related to the military of China: the history before 1911, i.e. the dynasties, the Republic of China (founded 1912, on mainland China from 1912 to 1949, on Taiwan and other islands since 1945) and the People's Republic of China (founded on mainland in 1949). — Instantnood 05:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional note: User:SchmuckyTheCat has depopulated this category (e.g. [2] [3] [4]), and delinked this category with its parents [5]. — Instantnood 05:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what it's for at all, somebody came along and created it just a few months ago with no edit summary, purpose or intent. But now you've "decided" what it's for. There are separate categories for all that crap - including a historical cat for dynasties and ROC before Taiwan. And most of it was already kept separate until you came along [6] and jamming Taiwan/ROC categories into this Chinese category declaring it generic. Then you started removing PRC specific categories and putting it in this generic category for all of China [7]. Further you've added, restored, whatever, [8] this generic category to the all-encompassing "militaries" category so that the PRC, Taiwan and this generic China all have representation twice over in parent categories. It's like you're purposefully trying to bring together wikipedia edit warriors from two sides of a sixty year old real world war. Almost every Taiwan article gets reverted daily by POV warriors from some side or another and here you're mixing them together when a perfectly valid, and separate, scheme exists. SchmuckyTheCat 07:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• " And most of it was already kept separate until you came along " - You were the person to seperate them [9] before I have it undone [10]. And this was done because the other was a subcategory [11] (note the time stamps). This was done as per what the Cfd notice says: " Please do not (..) empty the category while the question is being considered. " — Instantnood 07:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, Joshbaumgartner created dozens of cats that need fixing (see the previous week on CfD fixups proposed by TexasAndroid) and now you've got your panties in a bunch trying to come up with a way to keep it and mish-mash the PRC/ROC. SchmuckyTheCat 07:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This category has been general and all-encompassing until user:SchmuckyTheCat said it's not, and emptied and blanked it before the nomination here. — Instantnood 09:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There should be general categories for China with subategories for the political entities. CalJW 11:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Let's create Military of America then, and combine the United States and Mexico. Or even better, combine the United States and Russia, because the Russians used to control Alaska. SchmuckyTheCat 16:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

China is a subdivided nation. The United States and Mexico are two different nations as much as are say India and Poland (and the U.S. is America in English, while Mexico is "in the Americas"). CalJW 22:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Reorgranize / Rename: The general policy adhered to seems to be not to imply whether Taiwan is or is not part of China (China as in the PRC). hence, I suggest sorting by government, splitting up Category:Military of China into Category: Military of the People's Republic of China and Category:Military of the Republic of China. Should we decide to use "China" as a geographical region as the China article does, both PRC and ROC military cats may be listed as subcategories. No attempt should be made to cross list anything between the ROC and PRC categories (i.e. Category:Ships of China is out, should be replaced by Ships of the ROC/PRC under the relevant Military of ROC/PRC cat). This maintains neutrality as we use the official titles for both sides, recognising the seperation that exists while making no statement on the Political status of Taiwan, ROC, whatever.... -Loren 07:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we might consider renaming the top level Category:Military of China to a more accurate Category:Militaries of China. -Loren 08:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are articles for pre-ROC ships (but probably not the case for submarine.. :-) ). Category:military of the People's Republic of China already exists, and category:military of Taiwan probably has to be renamed as per naming conventions (categories) and naming conventions (Chinese). — Instantnood 08:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I suggest a new category should be created for the military of that historical period, i.e. Category:Ching Dyansty Navy or something like that. Technically speaking as militaries fuction as a branch of the state, it makes sense to categorize them by the associated state/national government of the time. As for renaming Military of Taiwan to Military of ROC, I am in favor of it for the same reasons I just mentioned. -Loren 08:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Category:ships of China is not solely for military ships. As for pre-ROC navies and navy ships, they can go to category:military history of China and category:Chinese navy ships. — Instantnood 08:58, 4 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Contraception currently just redirects to Birth control. If they are the same, then we shouldn't have redundant categories. I don't think it matters much which merges into which — I chose the category with the least entries as the one which should be merged into the other, but that is fairly arbitrary. --Fastfission 15:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably best to match the category name to the article name. Our Phellap 00:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably best to rename both to the most correct name. I believe "contraception" is the scientific name, and "birth control" is a semi-PC euphemism. Also, the former gets a lot more googles. So Support the rename, and also rename the article. Radiant_>|< 10:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - glancing at the two categories it becomes clearer what their usage is. Regardless of what the articles do, the categories are performing a different task. The sub-cats of Category:Abortion and Category:Sexual abstinence would have no place in Category:Contraception, which is also a natural sub-category of Category:Birth control. Keep both. Hiding talk 11:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per Hiding Osomec 16:42, 31 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For Consistency's sake. Mark Adler 14:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The former is clearly for the those active in the city of Washington, and the latter for those representing the DC at the federal level. What about making the former a subcategory of the latter? The city of Washington was in the past a part of the DC. It was not the entirety of the DC, until all of the DC were either other incorporated into the city or retroceded to Virginia. (For the purpose of vote counting, this is a keep vote, for both categories.) — Instantnood 07:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Keep the latter as it is, rename the former as Washington, D.C. politicians as per local usage. — Instantnood 07:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The district and the city are inseparable and I doubt you could find a single article, and possibly not even propose a single article, where the 1791-1847 inclusion of a spit of land in Virginia mattered whatsoever. SchmuckyTheCat 07:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexandia County was retroceded to Virginia in 1847. Washington County and Georgetown were not part of the city of Washington, until annexed in 1871. Although now overlaps, strictly speaking the DC is a federal subject, and the Washington city is a city. — Instantnood 09:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And any decision, law, rule or whatever in the city can be overruled by Congress - because there is no effective difference. SchmuckyTheCat 16:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Representative in Congress for DC... which is not a civic politician. 132.205.46.167 00:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A rep that doesn't vote and hey, two non-voting Senators too. But every Washington, DC politician is also a District of Columbia politician. Just like every Los Angeles politician is also a California politician. In California that's a reasonable distinction, in DC it's not. SchmuckyTheCat 01:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification: No, wait! That's all interesting discussion, but that's not my point. I wasn't really discussing the differences between Washington, DC and DC, I'm just saying this: in categories, we say Category:Foo politicians where foo is the state name. In the real distinction here is that Washington is more of the city name and DC is more like the state name. (I know that DC's not a state, but that's also irrelevant to this discussion.) Since the foo politicans category name is more for states, why not just call it District of Columbia politicians. My point, therefore is, Category:Washington, DC politicians is too easy to confuse with Category:Washington_politicians, whereas Category:District of Columbia politicians is so simple and clear. Unless... oh dear... it gets confused with Category:Columbia polticians. Drat. --Mark Adler 03:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No merge, these are different things. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a category for Humanities (Category:Humanities) which contains references to art, but Category:Humanities and art doesn't mention art at all. --Brunnock 13:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Humanities is a sub cat of Category:Humanities and art and Category:Arts is a sub cat of Category:Humanities. I think a better solution is to move Arts under Humanities and art. I'm considering being bold and fixing. Vegaswikian 18:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But art is a humanity (read Humanities). It doesn't make sense to have a category called "Humanities and art". You might as well have a category called "Science and physics". --Brunnock 19:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that "Humanities and art" should be deleted, and "Arts" should be under "Humanities". -- Beland 23:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Muddled and unnecessary CalJW 11:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; unnecessary level of categorization. siafu 13:39, 2 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates --Kbdank71 15:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid abbrev. Rename to Category:Association of Members Advocates. Radiant_>|< 11:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't this be either Category:Wikipedia Association of Members Advocates or Category:Wikipedia:Association of Members Advocates? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Radiant_>|< 21:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates, no colon but an apostrophe. If the 'article' doens't have one, it should. -Splash^talk 01:17, 30 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Websites which use Wikipedia --Kbdank71 15:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Permanently near-empty. Lists two other websites that allegedly rely heavily on Wikipedia. I'm not sure there's a point in that, it should be part of the articles on such websites, and anyway a plethora of people rely heavily on Wikipedia so this category is by definition incomplete. Radiant_>|< 11:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• My bet is that more and more will eventually be added as Wikipedia becomes more accessible. Anyway, I don't see any reason not to have a category for this — the subject matter, though currently underpopulated, is more appropriate for a category than a list. People relying on Wikipedia do not meet the requirements of the category — it is for websites or applications, etc., which use Wikipedia as a major part of their operation. There's no reason to delete this — its scope for inclusion is well defined, its need is there, and its subject is one which is better suited for categorization than use in an article or list. --Fastfission 15:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, at least, it should be Category:Websites which use Wikipedia. Radiant_>|< 21:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listify. Vanity category; Wikipedia is hardly that important, even within the internet community, to merit this kind of category "spread", and has a long, long way to go before/if it ever will be. 12.73.196.191 15:47, 31 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Wikipedia meetups --Kbdank71 15:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly empty. Merge with Category:Wikipedia Meetups. Radiant_>|< 11:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. -- Beland 23:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be Category:Wikipedia meetups as the suggested cat has been renamed. RedWolf 04:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 13:43, 2 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was relisted on Nov 4 --Kbdank71 15:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted on Nov 4th after fixing broken link from category page. ∴ here…♠ 21:42, 4 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This categorizes every article that uses the Nuttall Encyclopedia as a source. That seems hardly a fitting categorization, and the fact that the Nuttall gets a whopping 627 google hits makes this look somewhat like linkspam. I'd say delete, the articles should state their sources individually and not rely on broad cats such as this. Can you imagine dozens of tags like Category:Articles that use CNN as a source at the bottom of articles? Radiant_>|< 11:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nuttall is one of the sources being used for the missing encyclopedia articles project. It gets few hits because it is about 100 years old, which is why it is public domain. I believe the categorisation is done by a template. Bhoeble 19:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the long run, I agree with Radiant. Though right now, are there some articles that are categorized this way because they need updating or de-POVing or wikification or something? We should check before blindly converting. -- Beland 23:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra strong disagree, This category is very important, it means we can see what articles contain text from the Nuttall encyclopedia, thus can be updated and checked for POV etc. Hopefully in the future the category can be deleted when articles that contain text from the Nuttall have had all that text edited such that they no longer contain text from Nuttall. p.s. if you want to delete something like this, you should really let people know, such as here. p.p.s. Do you really think it is possible to "linkspam" an encyclopedia that is almost a century old? Martin 11:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Purpose made clear above. CalJW 12:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Martin. Most of these articles consist entirely of the entries from the Nuttall Encyclopedia, though hopefully updated. It isn't being used as a citation like CNN would be. -- Kjkolb 22:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Objection smells of POV - it's OK to have tens and hundreds of "Wikipedia" cats in Wikipedia, but not even one on Nuttall?Treat all amateur pedias equally: either categorize all equally, or delete all cats equally.12.73.196.191 15:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Osomec 16:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow, extremely surprising nomination! Glad it didn't sleep through the net and get deleted! Pcb21| Pete 19:51, 9 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all as nominated --Kbdank71 15:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And also:

Category:Australian Cabinet ministers → Category:Members of the Cabinet of Australia

Category:Australian MHRs → Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives

Category:Australian Senators → Category:Members of the Australian Senate

per general naming schema in place in Category:Political office-holders by country. Note that these are not nationality-occupation pairings like Category:American journalists. -The Tom 06:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• rename all as suggested. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• rename all as suggested. Osomec 16:42, 31 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standardisation of word order for man made objects and compliance with parent cateogry. Rename: Category:Wholesale markets in London. CalJW 02:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:33, 4 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be expanded to agree to its parent Category:Public houses in the United Kingdom and the other subcategories thereof. Rename category:Public houses in Shropshire CalJW 02:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay, why not... David 00:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:31, 4 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was upmerge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody decided that every article in Category:Wikipedia guidelines should be subcategorized instead, and created a number of seemingly arbitrary subcategories to clean out the parent cat. This pigeonholing is inherently confusing, and this subcat contains just about anything that didn't fit in the other subcats (e.g. the Manual of Style and deletion guidelines). This overbureaucratization is a bad idea, so please upmerge this category back. Radiant_>|< 10:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category; it makes sense to me. The guidelines category was a melange of style, how-to, and "how to behave" guidelines, and other things, which I sorted out, since it was quite difficult to find anything. I'd prefer to keep "behavioral guidelines" as a subcategory, but if other people also find it too confusing, merging with the parent is probably the next best alternative. -- Beland 23:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the style and howto categories. However, I fail to see the difference between the main Category:Wikipedia guidelines and the behavioral subcat. After all, in general guidelines tell you how to behave, even those related to deletion or style. Radiant_>|< 01:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Radiant. Inasmuchas "behavior" is not already covered by "guidelines" it should not be mandated by wikipedia. siafu 00:30, 4 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a new kind of guideline that is somehow unlike all the other kinds of Category:Wikipedia guidelines. Confusing and not needed. Propose upmerging. Radiant_>|< 00:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - see also wikipedia talk:coherence --Francis Schonken 08:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Coherence has no consensus nor discussion, only one person in favor and two opposed. This overbureaucratization is a bad idea. Radiant_>|< 10:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "What to keep and what to throw out" stuff should go under Category:Wikipedia notability criteria (which could possibly be renamed to something more inclusive). Things like "easy navigation" belong solidly under Category:Wikipedia style guidelines as an overview of style guidelines having to do with navigation. -- Beland 23:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Beland. -Splash^talk 01:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Beland. siafu 00:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Beland; needless overcategorization. Bearcat 00:22, 5 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was reverse merge into Category:Editorial validation --Kbdank71 15:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a bit tricky. I understand the purpose of both this category and Category:Wikipedia 1.0; however, in practice they have an almost 90% overlap, so it seems they have grown intertwined to a large extent. Imho either someone should sort this out, or we should simply merge the two cats. Radiant_>|< 11:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a merge, though I'm not sure which name is more descriptive for new readers. -- Beland 23:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest Editorial Validation, as that's really what it is. WP1.0 has been intended to be the result of good EdVal for several years now, but I'm afraid that most users haven't heard of it. Radiant_>|< 09:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: The discussion would seem to favor merging into editorial validation. This was not tagged, so I'll leave the discussion open for a few days. --Kbdank71 15:50, 7 November 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.