Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 13 December 15 >

December 14

[edit]

Category:Tata

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

The result of the debate was relisted on dec 24. Kbdank71 16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Tata to Category:Tata Group
Nominator's rationale: Merge. To match the main article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is needed, though new categories should be found. I'll see what I can add —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 10:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) locations

[edit]
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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is empty. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Small combatant classes

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

The result of the debate was merge both into Category:Small combat vessel classes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Patrol vessel classes to Category:Small combatant classes
Suggest merging Category:Fast attack craft classes to Category:Small combatant classes
Nominator's rationale: There is very significant overlap between these two categories, so I think it would be useful to merge them into a single cat. A vessel may be classified as a fast attack craft by a navy which wants to appear aggressive, but a vessel with similar armament and the same general purpose may be classified as a patrol vessel by a defensive navy. The merged category would be well-suited to contain patrol boats, FACs, missile boats, and torpedo boats. I am not married to the proposed name, but it is important that the name not use the term "ship"; many of these vessels are best described as "boats". TomTheHand (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shopping centers in Algonquin

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Shopping centers in Algonquin to Category:Shopping malls in Illinois. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Shopping centers in Algonquin to Category:Shopping malls in Illinois
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategory, requesting upmerge. Three of the pages in this category are up for AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As the creator of this category, I agree they should be merged, now realizing that all shopping centers in this community will not have separate articles on Wikipedia and that two or three malls is not enough for one category. Abog (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shopping centers in Schaumburg

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Shopping centers in Schaumburg to Category:Shopping malls in Illinois. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Shopping centers in Schaumburg to Category:Shopping malls in Illinois
Nominator's rationale: Requesting an upward merge to the parent category. Research has shown that there are only two malls in Schaumburg, they don't need a separate subcat. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As the creator of this category, I agree they should be merged, now realizing that all shopping centers in this community will not have separate articles on Wikipedia and that two or three malls is not enough for one category. Abog (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Elder Scrolls organizations

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Elder Scrolls organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There are two articles in this category, one of them covers all the organizations of Elder Scrolls, and the other is one of the game articles, which really doesn't have anything to do with this category, so there is one article in the category which covers all the organizations. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mitchell Report (baseball)

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

The result of the debate was delete, the comments by JForget and Carlos convince me. If they don't convince you, well there's an answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mitchell Report (baseball) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is simultaneously too broad, capturing anyone and anything with any connection to the report however nebulous, and too narrow, focusing on a specific report which is adequately covered in its own article. Clutterful. Otto4711 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Point. Keep or Rename to Illegal performance-enhancing substances in Major Leage Baseball.
  • Keep - I think it's worth having all the articles related to things mentioned in the report in one place, given just how big of an event this is in the history of professional baseball and professional sports at large. --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Comment - You just know that if we keep this category as-is, that people will start adding all the baseball players listed in the Report to the category. There doesn't seem to be a need for a category for one report; even if there are, for instance, congressional hearings, baseball reform committees, and so on, all generated by this report and dealing with this report, then we can create a category that captures that (like, Category:Mitchell Report responses). But right now we don't need a category for this, because as Otto4711 points out, there are already categories on the general subject and as Vegaswikian points out, most related articles will be able to be linked in the article on the report. (I note that this is most likely yet another instance of editors being confused about the difference between tags and categories.) --Lquilter (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth are we going to police who's in and who's out? Plus, it's 200+ players, right? So it will expand the category to multiple pages, which will just make people like me want to create the logical subcategories ... e.g., players named in. Despite the current media firestorm over this report, the substantive aspects of this are still substance use which is already categorized. Category isn't a recognition that something is a hot or notable topic -- it's simply an automated indexing scheme that, unfortunately, looks like a tag to people and so encourages them to think that it has something to do with notability. Delete, I say! --Lquilter (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1)Only 88 players are in the report. 2)The substantive aspects of this aren't the actual players. It is the culmination of the "steroids era" in Major League Baseball. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88, huh? Just like piano keys. It feels like gajillions. --Lquilter (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mere mention in or connection to this report puts you in this, not a proper basis for a category. Everything that is important to the Mitchell Report is included in the article, click away there. Otherwise we'll have a cat for this and for the Monica Lewinsky report, and what about categories like Category:Phone book to place everyone, -thing, -place that's been mentioned there, too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Angusmclellan (talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report

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

The result of the debate was delete. Named in the report? So what did it say? Well, a category will never be able to answer that question, only a list can do so, always assuming that it's worth capturing at all. Not an appropriate way to categorise living people: "Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation". In addition to this, it probably is an overcategorisation on multiple counts, but were that the only issue I would have closed this as no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - non-defining, better presented as a list, which it already is, at List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report. Otto4711 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nominator's rationale: - Gosh, I was drafting a nom, and Otto beat me to the punch. There are some great reasons why we don't want to label all the people mentioned in the report. The report has issues, namely:
  • It was an extra-judicial investigation which relied on hearsay evidence
  • Mitchell himself has a well-publicized conflict of interest, being an officer of the Red Sox
  • There are witness credibility issues, and a lack of corroboration, and a lack of transparency in how Mitchell made the findings
Now, to tag someone's biography with a category based on being mentioned in such an imperfect accusatory instrument, there needs to be a high degree of certainty in the accuracy of the instrument. To give an example, for rapists, we only categorize those CONVICTED and never those INDICTED, even if the indictment alleges super-duper awesome evidence. This here is not even an indictment - it's just an investigative report which may or may not be disproven as to any specific player in the future. All of which leads me to the notion of WP:LIVING, which I know all of you treasure. So let's delete this tag, and mention the stuff in the body of each biography, and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that someone was named in the report is not the same as saying they are guilty of anything. It is a fact that they were named; any possible implications anyone draws from it are not Wikipedia's concern. That's why I support keeping this one but say the "steroid users" category (which does draw a conclusion) needs to be deleted. There is a big difference, and the needless self-censorship being promoted here is a very dangerous precedent. Kafziel Talk 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let's take this to an absurd level to demonstrate the concept: how about Category:Jews named in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? To be sure, a notable document with some (slightly more severe) issues. We can let the readers draw their own conclusions! :) Everything is a matter of degree, yes? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even at that level, I guess I wouldn't have a problem. Having been named in the Protocols doesn't mean that those people did anything wrong and it doesn't lend credence to the work in any way. It would just be a verifiable fact. Like the people in Category:Hollywood blacklist. Were they actually communists? Maybe, maybe not. Was there evidence? We have to read their articles to find out. The category makes no claims about that, or even about whether being a communist is good or bad. It makes no implications at all. They were named, and it's verifiable, and that's all that matters for the purposes of categorization. Kafziel Talk 01:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, the list is not a list - it's fast becoming a prose article and will likely (eventually) be merged with the main one. Second, the players named in that report will never change so there's no need for a dynamic list because it has no hope of expanding; categories are much better-suited for that. Finally, whether they like it or not, the players named in the report will all admit that it's very much "defining" in terms of its importance to the public. Kafziel Talk 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're talking about: both categories and list (articles) are "dynamic". Categorization offers no benefits over lists in terms of discrete finite numbered sets. Rather, categories are helpful when members are too numerous to fit easily into a list, or when the attribute that is listed or categorized ought to be referenced or footnoted. As for "defining", that's a matter of opinion, and my guess is that some players will be defined by it and some will not. That case-by-caseness doesn't make a good fit for categories. (And in any case it's mere supposition and speculation to say that they will be defined by it -- how can we possibly know that right now in the midst of a media storm that, like so many others, might prove to be of passing interest?) --Lquilter (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To say its non-defining is rediculous, to be named in this report will definately define these players in the eyes of the public. The list of players named will never grow so a category is better than a list. -Djsasso (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the strange assertion that fixed and finite works better for category than list. Actually it's the opposite. --Lquilter (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's subjective. Suspected by whom? Which substances? What about the people who were named but are not suspected? When do they get to be removed from the category? When do others get added?
Aside from being a vandalism magnet (as, for instance, Red Sox fans might add the category to Yankees' pages, claiming so-and-so "suspects" so-and-so) accusations like that would require a cite because it's someone's opinion (a doctor, a district attorney, Bud Selig, etc). Is the speculation of a sportswriter for Newsweek enough to land someone in the category, or do we want something with more authority? Who decides? And how would we make it known? On the other hand, saying someone was named in this report doesn't need a separate source; the report itself is the source, it's immediately verifiable, and it doesn't draw any further conclusions as far as the level of suspicion, the validity of the report itself, etc. Kafziel Talk 01:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every category is this sort of vandalism magnet; your argument applies just as much to this category as it does to any other sourceable fact about whether a player has been suspected of doping. That's why lists are better than cats where vandalism is a likely concern, as here. --Lquilter (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you're proposing "named in X report" or "named in X study" as the appropriate and best way to divide a category of "drug cheats"? That seems to me to be not a good subcategorization method, since reports may proliferate for some fields leading to multiple "listed in X report" categories on some people, and other people aren't subdivided into a report at all. Plus if you're looking for someone you're not going to know, in advance, that they're in that category. It's a "whodunit" which isn't really a good model for a category scheme. --Lquilter (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very strict defining category of persons. Also, lists and categories can coexist. --Son (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify - Being named in a report no matter how notable the report is is not, itself, a defining attribute that works well as a category. This isn't a matter of disliking the information; this is a matter of figuring out the best way to present the information -- a list is going to work much better. For one thing, it can be more easily policed, and will be able to reference page numbers. (The inability to easily police inclusions and exclusions from a category is actually going to present WP:BLP issues here.) --Lquilter (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Kafziel & Son. I don't see why this is a cat or list proposition. I feel as though they both serve legitimate purposes. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In this case it seems to me that a category is better then a list; the names are not going to expand/contract; the category makes no conclusions where the list is quoting from the report itself. Hardnfast (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're proposing that an unsourced allegation is better because it's vaguer? That's a new one. The sort of referencing you suggest is undesirable is exactly why a list is better in something that is necessarily going to raise BLP issues. I note that it is not out of the question that players might sue the Mitchell Report commission for defamation since this is precisely one of the traditional grounds of defamation -- trade dishonesty. Thus it is vital that we source each reference to the Mitchell Report -- this hits squarely at a central BLP concern. --Lquilter (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider it an allegation, sourced, unsourced or otherwise. The category represents a fact: this group of players was listed in the Mitchell Report. It is a fact, verifiable and not the result of original research. As another mentioned above in regards to the Hollywood Blacklist, putting a player in this category doesn't suggest guilt or innocence, just that he was named. The detailed information of the report can be obtained at the reports article, or for a specific player, at the players article. Hardnfast (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Facts and allegations are not opposites; one alleges something factual about someone else. Categorizing someone is asserting or alleging something about them. In this case, by placing the relevant category on an article, one is alleging that they are in the report. That's a claim (allegation) that may be true or false -- I could put the tag on Babe Ruth and on Barry Bonds, for instance; it would be a false claim in the one instance and a true claim in the other. Since it is not immediately apparent and obvious whether it's true or not, it's the sort of thing that can and should be sourced. That's really what we mean by "defining" when we talk about whether a category is a "defining" attribute. Barry Bonds is obviously and clearly a baseball player; whether or not he was cited in the Mitchell Report is not so obvious and clear -- we need to look in the MR to determine. Since being in the MR does, itself, signify some arguably illegal and unethical behavior, it is by definition the sort of thing that needs to be cited, and is therefore a bad candidate for use in the simplistic, automated index that a category provides. All the functionality anyone could desire is available in a list, and the list avoids the BLP problems that a category presents. --Lquilter (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Major League Baseball players who have used steroids

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Major League Baseball players who have used steroids to Category:Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report
Nominator's rationale: Merge, All the players mentioned are included in the aformentioned. Mitchell had the same sources that implicated the players in this cat. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Worker's NGOs

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Worker's NGOs to Category:Worker rights organizations. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Worker's NGOs to Category:Labor organizations
Nominator's rationale: Merge into Category:Labor organizations, the broader category. This is a relatively recent category added into the Category:Non-governmental organizations, which is largely separate from the rest of Category:Organizations and which I am now sorting through as part of a larger project to clean-up Category:Organizations. Also, it is improperly apostrophized. Lquilter 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once you've looked at the specifics of the various categories you may feel differently. I've been mopping up this category along with others and we now have several more specific cats in an overarching category called Category:Labor organizations. This includes Category:Trade unions and several others including Category:Labor studies organizations which might be appropriate for one of the two you've mentioned. There's not one so far as I'm aware for Category:Labor social clubs (or maybe Category:Workers' social clubs) but I agree it's an important area; I just haven't seen the individual organization articles that would fit there.
In general the "NGOs" tree is problematic because it's poorly defined & largely redundant of several of the other trees (esp. "Category:Non-profit organizations" and "Category:Charities"). Each term is used in a slightly different context but in practice, as we have discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations, they are all rather redundant. I'm not proposing a giant remake right now (although that's in the works) but just cleaning up the various subjects. It was not very differentiated and I'd planned to just go in and clean out the individual member articles but last month a whole subject tree got built out, without awareness of other similar categories. (Plus "NGOs" isn't spelled out, but that's the least of the problems.) I decided to do most of these "X NGOs" noms separately because sometimes the NGO ones cover areas that weren't covered by existing trees, sometimes the subjects are slightly different, etc. So a bunch are coming. --Lquilter 20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Labor organizations are not necessarily workers organizations, as was quite obvious in the various Eastern Block countries where the parties in power perported to be so but the claim was specious at best. Some labor organizations seems best described as organizations that try to get as much for themselves at the expense of ordinary workers but claiming to be working on their behalves. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting opinions. Would you care to propose a category structure & names? --Lquilter (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's in the cat are a few organizations that aren't limited to labor issues (but also, immigration, "food sovereignty", fair trade, social betterment of the under privileged, and other causes), so upmerge it to the next higher level. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge you just have to get rid of that apostrophe! But seriously "Labor organizations" is much clearer. I see we have the American spelling down pat too ;-) Lquilter has been busily working on associated categories, and no one is coming up with acceptable alternatives. So get behind the merge. Sting_au Talk 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSee below- misleading per Bhg. None of these seem to be things workers actually join. Something like "NGOs concerned with working conditions" would be better. Johnbod (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the category to be merged into is "Labor organizations" not "workers' organizations" or "trade unions". Do you have a better name for a category that would gather together labor-related organizations such as trade unions, clubs & organizations associated with labor movement, orgs working for worker rights, etc.? ... btw, the "NGOs" term is not only long when spelled out, but it comes from a particular UN-related context, so it's not a good generic term for "organizations". --Lquilter (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But all these are just NGOs, which is a very widely used term. The super-category for all labour-type organisations, is a different matter, and a different category. The apostrophe rename is fine.Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It's a widely used term in a certain context; specifically UN-related. If you look through the Category:Organizations and various assorted talk pages you will see numerous complaints that there is no principled distinction between the types of organizations in "NGO" categories, "non-profit" categories, and "charities" categories. Hence the effort to avoid that terminology for something that is more generic and doesn't have particular context associations (that aren't well understood and are poorly enforced here at WP). (Please do -- your thoughtful contributions would be helpful.) ... The NGOs parent category, btw, is spelled out; wouldn't you want this one to also be spelled out? --Lquilter (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Joke religions

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Religious parodies and satires. There was a consensus to rename this, but not to what, and after being listed for 20 days, I figured I'd take a stab at this based upon the discussion. Cgingold is probably right in that we could also use Category:Parodies and satires of religion, but I'll leave that to someone else to create and populate.. Kbdank71 16:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the article, should be "Parody religions". >Radiant< 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's another "Joke category" -- Category:Joke organizations -- that I've been pondering what to do with. Is the sense that "parody" is just the preferred way of saying "joke", or is this something that's applicable only to the religion cat at issue here? --Lquilter 16:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parody" suggests that the fake religions are parodying a specific religion (my dictionary says that parodies are of "a particular writer, artist," etc.) and that isn't what I'm seeing in the category. I would suggest renaming to Category:Satirical religions. Recury (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename "Joke religions" is in the eye of the beholder as "Joke" can connote fake/false. "Parody" is also problematic as most of Christendom could consider Satanism as a parody of Christianity (black sabbath, black mass, and didn't Satan originate in the Bible), and some governments view Scientology as a business in religious garb; so "parody religion" is also in the eye of the beholder. "Satirical religion" comes closest, but who knows some people may actually believe in these as real religions - people's religious beliefs defy logic and many need "something" and who are we to say that these aren't "new age" or "modern" real religions rather than religions of a lesser God. If we keep this: I propose Category:Leadership-free modern religions because this is what distinguishes these from the itinerant holy man/woman drumming up business for his/her gods. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Satirical" would also be fine with me. I object to deletion, because the cat has a meaningful and non-trivial grouping of material that isn't found elsewhere. I also object to your LFMR name, because (1) it's too PC, and (2) some of these have leaders and/or aren't modern. >Radiant< 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As said above, a parody needs to be directed at something specific, and I don't think satirical works either, for the similar reason that a satire needs to be satirising something. A joke religion could just be a joke, without any particular agenda or point to make at all. Leadership-free modern religions is no good, because it would include pretty much every pentecostal church in existence.--Matthew Proctor (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Clearly a rename is needed. Either Category:Parodies of religion or Category:Satirical religions would be an improvement. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Parodies of religion or Category:Satirical religions or something, per discussion above. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some rename is needed. Parodies and satires are distinct things in law and literary criticism, but the line in actual practice is blurrier and most people are confused by the distinctions anyway. So, propose Category:Parodic and satirical religions. (I don't care about the *al but grammar people may sway me one way or the other.) --Lquilter (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I'm not sure what the best target would be. So I'll support what the closing admin selects. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Expanding on what I said above in support of renaming: the focus needs to be on parodies and/or satires -- not on religions -- otherwise some of the articles that belong here would be excluded from the definition. I don't much care if we go with "parodies" or "satires" or "parodies and satires" -- just so long as it's "XXXs of religion". Alternatively, we could consider "Religious parodies and satires" -- again, the emphasis being on the genre, not the subject. Cgingold (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - (1) I think "religious parodies and satires" would be quite different in meaning from "parodies and satires of religion". A parody done by the Left Behind people would fit into the first category, while a parody done by the Flying Spaghetti Monster people would fit into the second category. (2) Anyway, "Parodies and satires of religion" would I think include things like landoverbaptist.org (a website with satirical and parodic content, i.e., faux religious content), whereas the Flying Spaghetti Monster people will, I think, argue that they are an actual religion, albeit a parody one. In other words, "parodies and satires" can include books, websites, etc.; whereas "parodic and satirical religions" should include things which have the form of religion (organizations, professed adherents, documents) but are parodic or satirical rather than serious. --Lquilter (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmm... I'm starting to think that we might just possibly need to have both (groan) -- i.e. perhaps something along the lines of "Xxx religions" as a sub-category of "XXXs of religion". Does that make sense?? I think I need a drink... Cgingold (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lost alpine ski areas and resorts in New England

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 18:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lost alpine ski areas and resorts in New England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed, one organization's designation; these apparently aren't lost in the sense of cannot be found but in the "defunct" sense. If kept, a change in name along those lines is probably in order, but one unofficial organization's characterization of them as "lost" shouldn't be the basis of a category - any more than having Top 100 type categories. Carlossuarez46 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Lost" is used instead of something like "closed" is due to the seasonality of the business - since most operating ski areas close for 8 months of the year. "Defunct" could also be used, however with 10 years of research by NELSAP - and other regions of the country not aligned with NELSAP, "lost" has become the commonly used word for skiers and ski industry officials. Jrclark 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we should delete unless we indeed merge to a wider category. I suspect the New England list will grown in coming months with the ski season heating up. There are hundreds of defunct ski areas in New England, the more notable ones already appearing here on Wikipedia. I do suggest we analyze the differences between the regional lost ski areas - the northeastern ski industry is very much different than other regions in the United States. There are also repetitions of names across the country that don't necessarily appear in a New England or Northeast only category (which may lead one to consider keeping the regions in separate categories).Jrclark (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we tend to categorize by state and not region so this needs to be replaced to support the existing category by state organization that is well established. Or we can simply create a US category and split by state in the future as required. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WelcomeBotResearch

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

The result of the debate was relisted on dec 24. Kbdank71 16:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WelcomeBotResearch to Category:WelcomeResearch
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As discussed here this category name gives the false impression to users (me included)that welcome messages are being left by bots. In fact, the category is only being "used" (is it being used??) for research about welcoming, some of which could conceivably be bot-operated in the future. A consensus was evolving at the category talk page as I've just linked to rename, but no further action was taken hence my bringing it here. kingboyk (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see your reasoning, but I don't like the proposed name either, because I don't think it is accurate either. I cannot think of any better ones right now though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as user talk pages shouldn't be polluted with this; any name is bound to be confusing. Unclear that this is being used or is useful at all, considering the need to taken into account users who aren't welcomed. –Pomte 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television series produced by Paramount Television

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

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 16:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series produced by Paramount Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Television series by CBS Paramount Television, or Keep ... do we consider this distinction important or not? -- Prove It (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Moorabbin Saints Junior Football League

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moorabbin Saints Junior Football League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category relates to children's non-professional sport. The parent article for the category (Moorabbin Saints Junior Football League) has already been deleted and the category has only three members. Mattinbgn\talk 14:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who abbreviate the first name "Thomas" to "Th."

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who abbreviate the first name "Thomas" to "Th." (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as categorization by name, which is non-defining. -- Prove It (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Inland Empire of Southern California

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

The result of the debate was merge per nom. Kbdank71 16:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's merge the three of these into Category:Inland Empire (California), conforming to Inland Empire (California). "Inland Empire" the common appellation for the western parts of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties in the Greater Los Angeles Area, used by the Los Angeles Times and Press-Enterprise, the airport authority, the regional chamber of commerce among others.-choster (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further proposal The guy who scrambled the IE namespaces also successfully initiated moving Category:People from the Riverside-San Bernardino Area (69 pages) from Category:People from the Inland Empire (California), and created this category Category:Riverside-San Bernardino Area Airports (12 pages). While I personally don't think a "People from the Inland Empire (California)" category is strictly necessary, as the respective "people from SB or Riverside County" categories are fine, if Category:People from the Greater Los Angeles Area exists why not go for broke? And, while we're doing this, might as well change every other occurrence of "Riverside-San Bernardino Area" categories to reflect the article "Inland Empire (California)." Ameriquedialectics 19:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Striking suggestion to move Category:People from the Riverside-San Bernardino Area. Upon further reflection I think this category, along with Category:People from the Greater Los Angeles Area should be deleted, as the various "People from 'such and such' a county in California" categories are more geographically precise. Removing both categories would eliminate redundancy for the 69 people listed under the IE category, who would also be listed in addition to the 413 listed under the GLA category, which is already redundant per Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Redundant_categories. Ameriquedialectics 15:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wolf's Rain

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wolf's Rain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only had two articles (the main Wolf's Rain and the List of Wolf's Rain episodes in it, which have seen been removed. Seemingly unnecessary category for a single anime/manga series with no likely hood of expansion or use in other articles. Collectonian (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:False prophets

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:False prophets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I can't see anything good coming of such a divisive category. Who's to say who's false? Richfife (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the view of the catagorizer, "anyone who distorts the bible" fits, so it's a hopelessly unencyclopediac cat. DMacks (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm half inclined to speedy it (and still might). The creator of this category has just been adding it to the pages of religious figures he disagrees with. --B (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. DMacks (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me three; see below. --Lquilter (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seriously, this is a judgement call if applied to any living person, and a judgement call if applied to any dead person that is mentioned in more than one religion in different lights. There is no virtue in retaining this other than opening Wikipedia up to edit wars and possible defamation cases. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 05:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep legal issues out of it. Labeling someone a false prophet is a highly unlikely defamation claim for a number of reasons. It's a bad idea as a category for lots of other reasons, so no need to bring in Da Law. --Lquilter (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's an atheist for most of the gods out there. Self-defined atheists just go one further. --Lquilter (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military figures from Pittsburgh

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military figures from Pittsburgh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete occupation by city is OCAT - and here Pittsburgh is interpreted to include most of SW Pennsylvania so that more articles will fit but is less precise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alberta Junior Hockey League players

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. (And for the record, if DRV would review a no consensus decision (which happened to me), they'll take a rename.). Kbdank71 17:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alberta Junior Hockey League players to Category:Alberta Junior Hockey League alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was part of a batch nomination from December 6, and was voted to be renamed to the current name. Unfortunately, nobody related to WP:HOCKEY was notified, or saw this nomination. While that is not required, it would have been nice, as we could have informed the nom that his proposal to rename was based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between minor league hockey and junior hockey. His nomination was based on the idea of "standardizing" all minor league player categories. Well, they are all standardized. This is not, however, a minor league.

Junior hockey graduates are properly known as alumni. This is the terminology the Canadian Junior A Hockey League, the Alberta Junior Hockey League and its member teams use: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc, etc, etc. Disregarding the terminology that the league itself uses is a violation of WP:NPOV. Resolute 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Pparazorback (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. I understand the difference between the two types of leagues, and the difference is so slight as to be meaningless. Many junior hockey teams are considered by the NCAA to be professional leagues. But even THAT doesn't matter, because we treat even those who are in college sports teams as "players" rather than "alumni." Whatever the leagues call their players, there just is no justification for this terminology in the Wikipedia categorization system. And even besides that, they're still not universally called "alumni," probably not even a quarter of the time: [8]. And finally, in terms of usage, there's always our friendly Googlefight to resolve such issues: 1,920,000 for "junior hockey players" vs. 169,000 for "junior hockey alumni". This is an unsupportable exception in an otherwise pristine categorization system.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Googlefight comparison is meaningless, as current junior players are, naturally, referred to as "junior players". Given there are 60 Major-Junior and nearly 150 Junior A teams in Canada alone, most receiving good press coverage, it is obvious that there will be many mentions. You are not comparing how graduated players are treated. Resolute 03:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, The NCAA does not consider Canadian Junior A hockey (of which the AJHL is classified) as being professional, so that point is invalid as well. Even if you wanted to make that argument for the CHL leagues, Canadian Interuniversity Sport considers them to be amateur. Not sure how or why one would trump the other. Junior =/= college either. Resolute 04:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • that's not right. Minor league and Major league are one distinction, Junior and Senior are another. Juniors are under 21 years of age. (or 20, for the U-20 world championships) Senior leagues don't usually accept people under 16. Minor and Junior are very different. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. DMighton (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Beyond the above arguments, one factor is simple: as a matter of course, current junior hockey players are not -- by WP:HOCKEY's own notability criteria and WP:BIO -- generally notable. Almost all players in such a category are in fact alumni of their former junior teams, and as such, very few would be active players in junior.  RGTraynor  04:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename. Alumni IS the correct terminology. Flibirigit (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, I really couldn't have said it better myself. Junior players are considered alumni once they have graduated from the junior ranks. These are not minor league teams. The NCAA does not consider any junior teams to be professional, they just deam there players inelligible to play in the NCAA due to a small stipend they receive in the CHL. And I might note the NCAA is the only amateur organization in the world to look at it this way, the CIS in Canada considers it amateur, and even the IIHF which is the international governing body of hockey considers it amateur. So it seems if you were trying to make that argument, its the NCAA that is in the minority. One other thing to be made aware of, we don't call active players alumni which was why there were the two categories. The majority of active players aren't notable enough for pages so thus we only had a single league wide category for active players which actually used the word "players" anyone in the alumni categories were actual alumni. -Djsasso (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. As a general rule, we do have categories based on new/old/former/current/active/retired status. This holds true for all of Category:People by occupation and all of our our sportspeople-by-sport/league/team categories. All other sportspeople categories (for all sports, at all levels, amateur, collegiate, and professional) use temporally-neutral terms. Usually that term is players, though a few sports use similarly neutral terms, like footballers in Category:Gaelic footballers. The categories for Alberta Junior Hockey League should not be an exception. Even if we were certain that the category would never hold any active players, as is claimed above, there is no need to reduce this one cat's scope and break the consistency it holds with thousands of other cats throughout the project. This is not so different from the decision to rename categories like "World War II veterans" to "World War II personnel, despite the fact that that category will absolutely never contain active personnel. This category should keep its current name, and all of its subcats need to be renamed player to match. ×Meegs 12:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename - we do not categorize people by former and current status. There is no requirement that a project be notified of a CFD. Is there some reason why this is here instead of at WP:DRV? Otto4711 (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My guess is because it is a category and not an article. Is not WP:DRV for articles only? -Djsasso (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On top of that, it is also Deletion review. I checked, and there didn't seem to be an allowance for a category merger/rename at DRV, so I chose to relist it. And yes, I did note that there was no requirement to post any notice. I also said that it would have been polite to do so. Especially, as is obvious by this CfD, there clearly has never been consensus to rename these categories. Resolute 19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. In fact, rename all subcats to match. There is no good reason to name the category in such a way that does not allow active players. It is not uncommon for a junior player to have an article while he is still an active junior player. One current example is Karl Alzner, an article that has existed for about a year. He is an active junior player for the Calgary Hitmen. He is currently categorized as being an alumnus of his current team, which is inaccurate. If all of the "alumni" categories were changed to "player" categories, we would not lose any accuracy or add confusion. In fact, we would become more accurate. (For another extreme example is John Tavares (ice hockey), who is in the alumni category for his current team. This article was created a year and a half ago. He can't even be drafted in the NHL until 2009.) -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. Most of the people who want it renamed back use the justification that alumni is the proper term for former members. I don't believe that this is in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the category should be named in such a way to only include former players or should it be named in a way that would include former and current players. I am sure that I could find dozens of junior players that currently have articles without trying very hard. I wouldn't be too shocked if I could find 50 or more. What reason do you have for only including former members in the category? And remember, categories do not have to be defined in such a way that would make inclusion notable. (e.g. not everyone that could possibly fit in American nuns or 1980 births is notable enough to have an article. So, the fact that junior players are not inherently notable is not really relevant.) Most categories structures are done so that they are inclusive of current or former members. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The large majority of active junior players are not notable enough for an article. The players who are notable enough belong in Category:Hockey prospects, rather than any alumni category. Flibirigit (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same can be said about many other categories. Some examples across various sports: Arizona State Sun Devils football players, Oxford University cricketers, BSN players, Toronto Maple Leafs (minor league baseball) players. From what I can tell, the large majority of athletes that play for these teams currently are not notable. Those that are notable enough are probably a significant prospect, or have done something else of note. All of these categories are defined such that current and former players can be included, even though most articles currently within them are former members. From what I can tell, the junior hockey player categories are the only athlete categories that explicitly exclude current members. If you go outside the world of sports, it is just as consistent. Meegs example of renaming veterans categories to military personnel is a great example of a discussion where there was overwhelming consensus to change the name in a way that does not imply only former members, even though most of those categories will never have current members. Why should hockey be treated differently than other areas of Wikipedia? -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Television series debuts and endings

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 17:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
Category:2008 television program debuts to Category:2008 television series debuts
Category:2007 television program debuts to Category:2007 television series debuts
Category:2006 television program debuts to Category:2006 television series debuts
.
.
.
Category:1937 television program debuts to Category:1937 television series debuts
Category:1936 television program debuts to Category:1936 television series debuts
Category:1931 television program debuts to Category:1931 television series debuts
and
Propose renaming:
Category:2008 television program series endings to Category:2008 television series endings
Category:2007 television program series endings to Category:2007 television series endings
Category:2006 television program series endings to Category:2006 television series endings
.
.
.
Category:1942 television program series endings to Category:1942 television series endings
Category:1939 television program series endings to Category:1939 television series endings
Category:1933 television program series endings to Category:1933 television series endings
Nominator's rationale: As it stands at the moment, we have two different names for the two related categories. I am recommending that there should be one. The term "television program series" sounds clumsy and awkward and "television series" (in the form of "TV series") is the term used when disambiguation is required. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Captains Regent

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Captains Regent to Category:Captains Regent of San Marino
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity and disambiguation. Main article is at List of Captains Regent of San Marino. The Captain Regent is the head of state and head of government of the country. Snocrates 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bisons

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Seems to me that "bison" is the correct plural. Eliyak T·C 00:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_14&oldid=1140748910"