Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 26

< February 25	February 27 >

February 26

Category:Fictional words

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:Words originating in fiction. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: NEED REASON.Unencyclopedic, more or less abandoned since 2006, only three links to words with their own articles. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:words originating in fiction would be better, as at least one has already escaped into usage. Utopia could be added, plus newspeak, Doublethink, robot and plenty more. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Johnbod. Kevlar67 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2008 (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:Kevin Sharp songs

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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kevin Sharp songs to Category:Kevin Sharp (country singer) songs

Nominator's rationale: Requesting move per the fact that there is more than one musician with the name Kevin Sharp. Category name should match the country singer, whose page is Kevin Sharp (country singer). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:18, 26 February 2008 (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:Charities in the BBB Wise Giving Alliance

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 Category:BBB Wise Giving Alliance and listify Category:Charities in the BBB Wise Giving Alliance to BBB Wise Giving Alliance#Charities in the WGA. The fate of the listified content is a matter of editorial discretion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete (and listify charities "in" the Alliance, on the article) -- The top category is overcategorization, and the second category is an unnecessary eponymous category. (1) The top category includes a few of the organizations in the "BBB Wise Giving Alliance", a type of certification program by the Better Business Bureau. This categorization scheme is similar to the "categorization by accrediting organization" below, a type of "categorization by relationship to another entity" or "association with another entity". That's just an invitation to overcategorization. These charities may be in many "alliances", and may be certified by many organizations. (2) The related category is an eponymous category for the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance. It's unnecessary, since it contains only one category (listed here for deletion) and two articles (the article on the BBB Wise Giving Alliance itself, and an article which apparently is miscategorized and should be in the "Charities in..." category (overcategorization). Lquilter (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify charities and delete both - the charities category is overcategorization by association. Charities may have temporary or permanent affiliations with any number of other organizations and categorizing them on that basis will lead to clutter. The cat named for the alliance is eponymous overcategorization for material that doesn't warrant it. Otto4711 (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tx otto - forgot to say "listify" in my nom. --Lquilter (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2008 (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:Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada

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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete; this is a category to gather together all schools credited by a particular association. This is vast overcategorization by association with another entity -- many universities are accredited by multiple associations. Moreover, I'm not even sure it's a good idea to listify this -- I don't know how often they accredit, and it may not be a good idea to store this kind of periodic and changeable information in an article that is not guaranteed of regular updates. Lquilter (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2008 (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:Film magazines

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. Too separate to be merged together. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Film magazines to Category:Film magazines and journals

Suggest merging Category:Film studies journals to Category:Film magazines and journals

Suggest merging Category:British film magazines to Category:Film magazines and journals and Category:British magazines

Nominator's rationale: Merge the main article doesn't differentiate between magazines and journals; unsure of the utility of maintaining separate structures. If the separate structures are retained, Category:British film magazines should still be upmerged to Category:Film magazines and Category:British magazines. The population of the parent category is not so massive as to require splitting by nationality and this is the only by nationality subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I can't comment on how well the structures are maintained, but there is a big difference between film "magazines" (i.e., popular film coverage) and film "journals" (i.e., academic film studies). That difference is mirrored in the two category structures Category:Magazines and Category:Journals, both of which are in Category:Periodicals. Film studies is very, very different from Entertainment Weekly. --Lquilter (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the British film magazines upmerge to BMs and FMs at this point. --Lquilter (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Simply put the two are very different. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. The magazine & journal trees are differentiated throughout, and the "main article" is just a list. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, and keep British film magazines as British magazines is overlarge. Tim! (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2008 (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:Swedish historians of religion

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: upmerge to both parents, without prejudice to reconsideration of the issue in the future. No participant opposed the nomination and Cgingold actually expressed a preference for an alternate structure of subcategorisation (by subfield). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Swedish historians of religion to Category:Both parents

Nominator's rationale: Merge to both parents - this is the only "historians of religion by nationality" category and neither parent is so massive (fewer than 70 in one and fewer than 40 in the other) that splitting the parents to this level of specificity is required. Otto4711 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yet it is carrying out a well-recognized form of subcategorizing. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, although I agree it's not necessary at this point. In the absence of affirmative reasons against, do we need to delete? --Lquilter (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better not to fragment small categories into ever finer and finer sub-categroies in the absence of a real need to do it. I also think it's better not to put too many intersections on a category. Although there's no official sanction of the so-called "triple-intersection" rule I do think it's best not to have any more than two intersections in a category name unless there's a good reason, like dividing a massive parent. With barely 100 articles in the two parent categories in total, splitting them by nationality and occupation and area of specialization is too much. Otto4711 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would rather see this category divided by sub-field than by nationality. I'm not certain that actually needs to be done, but I think it would be more useful to readers. Cgingold (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2008 (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:Experimental film (criticism)

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 without prejudice to creating a category that does not contain biographical articles. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing film critics based on the sort of films they criticize is not a useful scheme. Film reviewers generally review films from many if not every genre and categorizing them on that basis would be clutterful. If there are actual articles on the topic of experimental film criticism out there such that a category would be useful separate from a general Category:Film criticism then I have no strong objection to a rename to Category:Experimental film criticism to remove the parentheses but given the current small size of the parent I have my doubts that breaking it down by genre is useful. Otto4711 (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2008 (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:Researchers of Branch Davidians

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: reorganise. I'll list Category:Researchers of Branch Davidians for renaming by bot to Category:Branch Davidianism. Will need cleaned up thereafter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Branch Davidians. This category strikes me as rather too narrow to pass muster. Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neither of the people in the article is a Branch Davidian so a merger there would be inappropriate. The narrowness of this field of study and its limited potential for growth suggest deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ - The category exists because one of the researchers, Carol Moore, rightly did not wish to be placed in the parent category. There are indeed quite a few other notable researchers who could also be placed in the category, so over time it will not be narrow but encompass a few other researchers. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even with a few more articles added, it would still be small with no growth potential. This is exactly the sort of small category that WP:OC contemplates, onr that will never have more than a few members. Otto4711 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are quite a few other researchers out there that have studied the incidents involving this group, perhaps 10 or 20. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we categorize based on the preferences of the subject of an article? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did that and created the category after she had contacted me, out of deference to her wishes because the article about her is a WP:BLP. But no worries, I agree with the solution raised by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this cat. Why? Stepping back a moment: Category:Branch Davidians is ambiguously worded to contain both material related to that sect, and adherents of it. I dislike categories where people are put into categories that aren't really for people, so I would create Category:Branch Davidianism to place all non-adherents and leave Category:Branch Davidians for adherents like we divide Category:Roman Catholic Church from Category:Roman Catholics, which of course I feel ought to be deleted as not category material, but alas I am in a minority on that score. As for one's narrow field of research: OCAT. Next, we'll have Category:Researchers of the reproductive habits of fruit flies and other such categories of a few. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree w/ Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs), seems like a very good idea. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given the likelihood of confusion, it obviously makes more sense to delete with no upmerge, so I've changed my !vote accordingly. In any event, the underlying issue of excessive narrowness is what matters here. Moreover, I suspect that most of the people who might hypothetically be put in this category would be better described as "Researchers of the Waco Siege", which is (evidently) the subject of Carol Moore's book. That leaves Bruce D. Perry, who details (in one book chapter) his work in studying the trauma experienced by Branch Davidian children as a result of both the Waco Siege and prior abuse by David Koresh and his followers. So I suppose he could fairly be described as a "Researcher of Branch Davidians". But that's a pretty slender reed to build a category around. Cgingold (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Carlos says - main cat Category:Branch Davidianism, to include these researchers & the main article, then Category:Branch Davidians, Waco etc sub-cats, below that. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do what What Carlos says - This is how many categories are handled that have people of an organization involved. Hmains (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2008 (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.

More film and TV awards

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 all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Awards:

Nominator's rationale: Standardizing to most movie and TV award formats: “(award subject) (award name) winners” per the recent Golden Globes discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split up by award - I have different opinions about some of these category series and I'm sure other editors will too. Trying to discuss 10 different awards in the same nomination is a recipe for a trainwreck. Otto4711 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. (The following nominations used to be part of one main nomination, but are now split by source of the award.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. Equivalent to US Academy Awards so prestigious enough for categorization. Thanks for splitting these up (although now that they're split I think my opinions may be a bit more uniform than I thought they were going to be). Otto4711 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: listify and then delete both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AVN Awards:

Nominator's rationale: Standardizing to most movie and TV award formats: “(award subject) (award name) winners” per the recent Golden Globes discussion. The Starlet award is really called "AVN Award for Best New Starlet," but our structure puts the specific award name before the uber-name, as in Category:Best Actress Academy Award winners--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Adult Video News Award winners for clarity. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem the award is ever called that. AVN Award is kinda the full name anyway, since the nickname is the Woody. (Yes, I feel dumber for having learned that.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify - I think things can have two nicknames. If this is kept and not listified (my preferred solution), then I would spell it out per Pegship. It is not a commonly known award outside of the porn industry so spelling it out is more helpful to Wikipedia's users. Unlike the Academy Awards, many casual porn consumers do not know it exists. The fact that it is not a commonly known award outside of porn producers is why I think the category should be deleted and listified. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers are not going to describe an AVN Award winner as "the notable AVN Award winner, Sharon Mitchell..." In fact, even within the porn industry I would venture to guess that people would not be "defined" by their AVN Award -- introduced or best-known for or described primarily within the context of winning the award. Instead, people will be defined by their physical attributes ("large", "blond"), style of performance ("loud", "realistic"), best-known roles (which we don't categorize by), or famous gimmick or sex act ("dresses like a schoolgirl", "anal sex"). So, delete and listify. --Lquilter (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine with me too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Raspberry Awards:

Nominator's rationale: Standardizing to most movie and TV award formats: “(award subject) (award name) winners” per the recent Golden Globes discussion. I didn't think spelling out "Golden Raspberry Award" was necessary, though, as they're far better known as Razzies.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete - These are not defining of their recipients; they are specific to particular performances, and are therefore a type of overcategorization as performer by performance, as well as overcategorization on the usual "award-winners are overcategorization" criteria. See my notes at the end of this nom. --Lquilter (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Razzies seem at least as important as the Golden Globes. They're the top award of their particular kind, if that makes any sense. So I'd keep these.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward keep - these are no more categorization by performance than any other awards category. Speaking over-generally, the Nobel Prize is given for specific "performance" in the field. The Acabemy Awards certainly are given for particular performances and it's well-settled that we're keeping the Oscar categories. The p-by-p argument doesn't hold up. Otto4711 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does hold up, and I want to extend it! Academy, Schmacademy. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think they are very legit awards and do define the actors that get them. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And just to be clear, by "Keep" we mean "Rename," right?--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: listify and then delete. I could - perhaps should - have closed this no consensus, but it seems like bias in action to listify porn and soaps and keep the skiffy and scary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn Awards:

Nominator's rationale: Standardizing to most movie and TV award formats: “(award subject) (award name) winners” per the recent Golden Globes discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no super-strong feelings on this one, but I note that while this is considered a major award in the field/genre, two additional major literary genre award categories are up for CFD here and look like they're heading for deletion. Whatever the result there the result here should probably match it. Otto4711 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like more of a "no consensus" to me, and the connection between book awards and film/TV awards may or may not be strong. Let's evaluate this one on its own merits. I lean toward keeping the Saturns. (Then again, I've heard of the Saturns, and not the TVyNovelas, so I may be overvaluing my own limited perspective.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: listify and then delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TVyNovelas Awards:

Nominator's rationale: Standardizing to most movie and TV award formats: “(award subject) (award name) winners” per the recent Golden Globes discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete - these are awards given out by a magazine each year. They are a fair bit higher profile than other magazine-based awards because they are televised, but the People's Choice Awards are also televised and we don't (and shouldn't) categorize those. Otto4711 (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's cool too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: listify and then delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uniquely named awards:

Nominator's rationale: Standardizing to most movie and TV award formats: “(award subject) (award name) winners” per the recent Golden Globes discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete all - Difficult to judge since there is little in those award articles that do exist to judge prestige but for instance Konrad Wolf doesn't even mention that there's an award named for him. These I think can reasonably be listified. Otto4711 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete all -- I hate to hijack a perfectly good renaming CFD, but as long as someone has taken the trouble to append the templates, I will hop on board and say that I'd been eyeing many of these as good candidates for deletion. I'd also like to suggest that we look at creation of a Template:Award winners that could have a single modest bar of color, with default set on HIDE for the rest of the contents, and relevant sub-templates for individual awards. The Nobel templates look good, and working on a single template to clean up the award-winners mess looks to me like the best solution I've seen. (Drafting at Template:Awardwinners and Template:Awardwinners/doc)--Lquilter (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (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:Indonesian Catholics

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 Category:Indonesian Catholics to Category:Indonesian Roman Catholics. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indonesian Catholics to Category:Indonesian Roman Catholics

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per standard naming format of Category:Roman Catholics by nationality. Individuals included are Roman Catholic and not of other Catholic flavours; category has Roman Catholicism parents and it appears to be a simple case of "Roman" not being included in the name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (as most WP:Indonesia Project category changes never get to that project notice board) - this is one which I would have no objection to - Satu Suro 08:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary OCAT by intersection of nationality & religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep - specific notable individuals of this religious identity in a country where this is a significant religious minority is an issue that does need identification Satu Suro 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom, based on the content of the category and its place in the category structure. Hmains (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per nom - I am one of perhaps 4 or 5 regular contributors to Indonesia articles and their related project. The categorisation of this religious minority in this religious country needs to be maintained. I am happy to change the wording per nom. --Merbabu (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename if you need to. Scanlan (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2008 (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:Cities in New Zealand

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:Main urban areas in New Zealand, make a subcategory to Category:Cities, towns and communities of New Zealand.

Suggest merging Category:Cities in New Zealand to Category:Cities, towns and communities in New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: Merge, other category encompasses all the articles and categories which would reasonably be in this one.-gadfium 05:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cities, towns and other communities should normally have three separate categories that differentiate them from each other, not one category that lumps them all together. Category:Cities, towns and communities in New Zealand is actually the one that should be deleted here. Bearcat (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The towns and villages categories were deleted in January. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 4#Category:Villages in New Zealand (and the Towns just below it). See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 2#Category:Cities and towns in New Zealand → Category:Cities, towns and communities in New Zealand for the creation of the amalgamated cat.-gadfium 07:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The distinction between cities and other NZ communities seems worth retaining, despite the definition being a bit fuzzy. How about just making Category:Cities in New Zealand a subcategory of Category:Cities, towns and communities in New Zealand (rather than of Category:Settlements in New Zealand)? -- Avenue (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the Cities cat becoming a subcat of Cities, towns and communities.-gadfium 05:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The status of cities in New Zealand is open to interpretation, as is made clear in the article on them, which makes categorisation a bit problematical. Note the arguments given at the deletion of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Towns in New Zealand and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Villages in New Zealand. I note you agreed with a merge on them, Avenue... Grutness...wha? 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agreed with merging towns and villages. "Village" especially has no real currency in NZ, and "town" has murky boundaries at both extremes. The fuzzy boundary between "towns" and "cities" does concern me, but I see enough value in having a category for the country's largest urban areas to outweigh this. I'll propose an alternative title that gets around the fuzziness below. -- Avenue (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Cities in New Zealand to Category:Main urban areas in New Zealand, as defined by Statistics NZ. This category would be sharply delineated, at the cost of using a term that is less familiar to most readers. The new category should probably also include Auckland, Wellington and Hamilton, which are chopped up into various "zones" in the official classification. -- Avenue (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it would work.-gadfium 05:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a fair compromise to me, too - as long as the names of these qualifying main centres are listed in the category header. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean all 20+ main centres, or just the exceptional cases I mentioned above? I had imagined doing the latter, and giving a link to the full official classification. -- Avenue (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get this clear: the new "Main urban centres" cat would be a subcat of Cities, towns and communities? Would articles on these centres go in both categories, or just the Main urban centres cat? I presume the subcats of Cities would stay in Main urban centres, and the subcats of Cities, towns and communities would move there, except for Category:Suburbs of Hamilton, New Zealand, which needs be in neither since it is in Category:Neighbourhoods in New Zealand and the Hamilton cat.-gadfium 03:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of that, although Category:Port cities in New Zealand should probably stay where it is (a subcat of Cities, towns and communities) since it contains smaller centres like Timaru and Onehunga (and could include more). Technically there is a similar issue with "People from Queenstown" being a subcat of Category:People by city in New Zealand, but I'd be tempted to ignore that. (There's only one person in the Queenstown category at present.) I think the main centres should just go in the "main urban areas" category, not both. -- Avenue (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to close Just to clarify what the consensus is, we are renaming Cities to Main urban areas, and putting it as a subcat of Cities, towns and communities? (Just want to make sure I get this close right :)) Orderinchaos 08:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct.-gadfium 08:32, 9 March 2008 (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:NNN in Kiev city (multiple requests)

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 all. Kbdank71 15:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Economy of Kiev city to Category:Economy of Kiev

Propose renaming Category:Education in Kiev city to Category:Education in Kiev

Propose renaming Category:History of Kiev city to Category:History of Kiev

Propose renaming Category:Neighborhoods and raions of Kiev city to Category:Neighborhoods and raions of Kiev

Propose renaming Category:Sport in Kiev city to Category:Sport in Kiev

Propose renaming Category:Squares in Kiev city to Category:Squares in Kiev

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Kiev city to Category:Streets in Kiev

Propose renaming Category:Transport in Kiev city to Category:Transport in Kiev

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Kiev city to Category:Visitor attractions in Kiev

Nominator's rationale: Naming convention. NNN is subcategories of Category:Kiev. This request is an extension of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_19#Category:Buildings_and_structures_in_Kiev_city. -- Greggerr (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (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:Only children

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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Categorizing people by birth order or number or lack of siblings is probably not something we want to start, simply because it's not typically defining for a person. Though it's an extreme example, I don't look forward to Category:People with two older brothers, two younger sisters and one younger brother. At most, a list could be included as part of Only child, I suppose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not helpful to categorize. VegaDark (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trivial characteristic, and bad form to categorize based on relationship or lack thereof to other entities. --Lquilter (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this a candidate for a hidden category? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Could you point me to a link where I could find out what a hidden category is? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try this link. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2008 (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.