Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 19

< December 18	December 20 >

December 19

Category:Départements of France

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Départements of France to Category:Departments of France

Rename We use English on the English wikipedia and the title article has already been renamed in October. Bob 22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Chicheley 11:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rebane per nom for good reason Hmains 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pun or typo? : ) - jc37 10:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At times, we do use the actual name of something (such as an organisation), as it is called most commonly in its country of origin. However, in this case, I don't believe that that is an issue... - jc37 10:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom, and my comments above. - jc37 10:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jamaican anti-communists

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless unnecessary clutter category. Had a since entry until recently. Hu 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 00:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate (I assume Hu means he emptied it). It is the size of the parent category that determines whether sub-categories are appropriate, not the size of the smallest subcategory. Chicheley 11:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the size of the parent category is determinative, then keep one around for Other Anti-Communists. It is just clutter to have a bunch of useless under-populated ill-defined categories. Anyway, what defines membership in the category? With almost all of these many useles categories, there is no definition of membership given. Do you have to be a member of the John Birch Society or is merely having owned some land at some point sufficient? Hu 03:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Supporters/critics of "x" (requires citations, etc etc etc) - jc37 10:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Simcoe County Roads

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Simcoe County Roads into Category:Ontario county roads

DO NOT AGREE,this page is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads and one of our tasks is to sort all roads into categories according to their county. Furthermore, it is much easier for other users to search for these roads if we sort them by county, not provinec. Ontario is too large, and if all these categories merge, the category Category:Ontario Roads would be too large, and thus users of Wikipedia would find it hard to search for these roads. I think the best solution to this issue, is to put Simcoe County Road as a subcategory in Ontario county roads. The Geography Expert--Glad to serve you • Chat or discuss something with me • What I give 21:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as subcats are necessary for categorisation on this scale, Tewfik^Talk 00:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused. This was discussed here (Dec 5) with an upmerge consensus. ~ BigrTex 20:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cateory:Chicago/Pittsburgh players

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 00:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chicago/Pittsburgh players to merge with Category:Chicago Browns/Pittsburgh Stogies players. The reason for merger is that these two are identical categories, made for the exact same purpose. I choose the latter to be the one kept as it includes the team nicknames, which is the common practice when categorizing players to which teams they played for. Neonblak 20:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to conventionally named duplicate, Tewfik^Talk 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger 00:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- The Geography Expert--Glad to serve you • Chat or discuss something with me • What I give *This signature prooves that this discussion/article/section is official! 04:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lubavitchers

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lubavitchers to Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidim

Rename to bring into line with naming convention. "Lubavitcher" is a Yiddish colloquialism for followers of C-L Hasidism. - crz crztalk 19:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per article name, Tewfik^Talk 00:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Joey (TV series)

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary eponymous category for a television series. The only subcategory is the episode listings, which already are properly subcategorized under Category:Episodes by television series. All other information about this TV series is already linked to or included in the main article, making the main article a valid hub for information. In general most individual TV series should not have their own eponymous category. Dugwiki 19:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary cat per nom and convention on other TV show categories, Tewfik^Talk 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe it is just malplaced. Instead of being in Category:Friends it should be in Category:Categories named after television series (the Category Category:Friends is in), which should probably be renamed Category:Television series. Its episode subcat could continue to be subcategorized under Category:Episodes by television series. TonyTheTiger 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I went ahead and flagged this as a subcat of Category:Categories named after television series. I did not, however, remove it from Category:Friends because one could argue that Joey is a directly related spinoff so it might also belong there as a subcat too. Neither change, though, affects my overall recommendation to delete Category:Joey (TV series) as being unnecessary overcategorization. Dugwiki 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:NOT paper applies equally in the category namespace, so "In general most individual TV series should not have their own eponymous category." is not true. Tim! 07:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which section of WP:NOT are you referring to? I don't see the connection between that policy page and this cfd nomination. Are you implying that WP:NOT indicates that most TV shows should have their own eponymous category? Because if you are I don't see it in there. Thanks. Dugwiki 17:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not paper, right at the top. Tim! 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Wikipedia is not paper" has nothing to do with overcategorization. Overcategorization has to do with diluting the utility of searching with categories as well as maintaining articles. The more categories an article has, the less useful those categories become as a whole. The reasons against overcategorization have nothing to do with physical limitations of disk space but rather have to do with improving readability, search utility and reducing maintainence in articles. Dugwiki 19:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Additionally, I'll ask the somewhat rhetorical question of why categories are ever deleted aside from POV issues? Obviously if disk space was the only concern and there is unlimited space then there would be no reason to delete any categories that are objective. You could keep as many categories as you like that had only one or two articles, that represent trivial information, that are better represented as list articles or that are redundant either with their main articles or other existing categories. Every article could theoretically have its own, unique category and every other article associated with it would be included. Clearly that sort of indiscriminate super-categorization creates a massive messy hodge-podge of categories at the end of articles that would be very hard to use and maintain. Dugwiki 19:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - One last comment - I'd suggest directing general questions regarding overcategorization to the Wikipedia:Overcategorization talk page, since that guideline is meant to address and catalog ways to reduce overcategorization of articles within the exisiting Wiki categorization policies and guides. The topic of eponymous categories in general would fit well on that talk page as a thread for discussion. Dugwiki 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - In fact, that sounded like a good idea, so I went ahead and started a thread about eponymous categories on the talk page myself. Feel free to add feedback if you like. Dugwiki 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The eventualist in me suggests that this is a "starter" TV series category, just like any other. - jc37 10:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Two replies. First, as a rule otherwise relatively empty "placeholder" categories should be deleted until such time as they're actually needed. The main exception would be if there is an existing overall category scheme that requires such placeholders, such as dividing works by year and you need to create a placeholder for a specific year. Second, this begs the question of why there would be "starter" TV series categories in the first place, unless you're suggesting that most or all TV series ought to have their own unique category? Dugwiki 16:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to put it another way, if Joey (TV series) has its own "starter" category then what distinguishes it from every other TV show on Wikipedia? Why not have starter categories for every single TV show with its own Wiki article? Dugwiki 16:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is: ok : ) - But obviously there should be at least something to place in the category before creating it. If you're suggesting that this be deleted until such time as there is more to place in it, I wouldn't oppose that, since it would seem to only have a single subcat and a single entry. - jc37 23:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Old Citizens

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Citizens to ~~Category:City of London School alumni~~ Category:Alumni of the City of London School

Rename - Per School alumni convention and on the grounds that most people would not IMHO understand that "Old Citizens" would refer to the alumni of a school. Otto4711 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this form and at this time Category:People by schools in England shows 56 categories using the name the school uses (e.g. "Old Giggleswickians", "Old Ravens"), one using Category:Ackworth Old Scholars and one using Category:Former students of the BRIT School. Almost all UK university alumni categories are in the form "alumni of..." (a more natural style for the UK) and this is also the form of the text description for the Old Citizens category. I don't think this one to sort out on individual categories - can I suggest that instead this nomination is withdrawn and all 58 are nominated for "Alumni of the (school name)". Timrollpickering 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per nom, rename to be consistent with alumni naming convention. I also agree with Timrollpickering above that other categories with similar problems should be nominated for renaming as well (although I don't see a reason this category can't be renamed now in the meantime.) Dugwiki 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed suggested rename per Timrollpickering. No reason why this cat can't be renamed in line with the existing convention (didn't realize there was a separate convention for UK schools) and the others be nominated separately as well. Otto4711 19:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Timrollpickering, and nominate the other categories as well, Tewfik^Talk 00:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, confusing. I'm not from the UK; when I read the name I thought, "Citizens of what? How old is Old? Do we have Young Citizens or New Citizens?" NeonMerlin 04:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm an Old Citizen myself and I can't recall any specific term being used for current pupils. There may have been the odd nickname by a sister or rival school, but nothing widespread that I can recall. Timrollpickering 12:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Alumni of the City of London School isn't acceptable, maybe Old Citizens (Alumni of the City of London School), i.e. disambiguate...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is the form of name used for English schools. Chicheley 11:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose' English schools don't have alumni, they have 'old boys' and 'old girls', or sometimes 'former pupils' (though this is more Scottish). Eton has 'Old Etonians', not alumni. Winchester has 'Wykehamists', Harrow has 'Harrovians', etc. DuncanHill 13:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And very few people outside the UK are going to have the idea that a "Wykehamite" is a leaver of Winchester. Some people outside the UK may know what, say, an Old Etonian is because that's crossed the pond to a limited extent but who is going to know what an Old Citizen or an Old Raven or an Old Giggleswickian is? Categorizing the information in this form is a barrier to encycolpedic usefulness. The category description can certainly and should certainly note that in the UK such alumni are properly addressed as Old So-and-Sos.Otto4711 14:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is indeed the form of name used for English schools; anyone who doesn't understand the term will find a definition at the top of the page Category:Old Citizens. roundhouse 16:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something, don't particularly care what. "Old citizen" means something else outside the UK, and we should avoid systemic bias. >Radiant< 16:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it systemic bias to use the correct name for something? DuncanHill 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if insistence on the "correct name" constitutes a bar to encyclopdiec utility. Otto4711 01:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The potential problem that folk seem to be identifying is that "Old Citizens" is too ambiguous for a category name (cf fifth point here), so if "Alumni of..." is an inappropriate form of disambiguation, how about Old Citizens (Former pupils of the City of London School)...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ugh at the ambiguity mess herein... Watching for futher suggestions before throwing in my own meagre two-pence : ) - jc37 10:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Please note that this is a proper noun: there is no conflicting proper noun as far as I am aware. This is what this group of people are called, so it seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me. Just because a lot of people do not immediately understand what a term refers to does not mean that the term should be suppressed or destroyed. We are here partly to educate people, not to maintain their state of ignorance. --Mais oui! 09:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comment One other point that may confuse things further for former pupils of schools categories in general - there is a significent difference between "former pupil of the school", "school recognised former pupil"/"eligible for the Old Boys/Girls/Pupils' association" (not all pupils leave their schools in good circumstances) and "member of the Old Boys/Girls/Pupils' association" (with the further complication that for some associations membership is automatic and for life, for others it's an opt in and for some it's automatic for so many years then one has to renew - at CLS it's ten years - whilst many schools don't have old pupil associations at all). And whilst some schools will use the "Old Fooian" moniker as part of the name for the association, others use a different name (CLS's is the "John Carpenter Club", named after the school's founding father). The net result of all this is that it isn't always clear whether or not someone actually is an "Old Fooian" in the eyes of themselves, the school, other ex pupils etc... Timrollpickering 12:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Methodist bishops of the Buenos Aires Area

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Methodist bishops. Timrollpickering 00:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another single-article category for Methodist bishops, per the pattern of over-categorisation of the small number of such bishops on whom there are articles. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(see also a long list of similar CFDs) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Methodist bishops. Note that Category:Methodist bishops of the Buenos Aires Area is a sub-cat of Category:Methodist bishops of Latin America, which in turn a sub-category of Category:United Methodist bishops of South America. In other words, bishops from aceoss the different strands on methodism are being classified under one particular methodist denomination.
Most of these categories should be deleted as over-categorisation, but also because the confusion between the range of Methodist denominations and the particular United Methodist denomination makes this whole category structure a mess. :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also possible that this was actually intended for Bishops of the Buenos Aires Area of The Methodist Church (which did become part of the United Methodist Church), given it's one article. Which'd just mean the ambiguous name is yet another problem with the category. Mairi 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right: the article title and the matching category (Category:Bishops of the Methodist Church was confusing, because it could be read as applying to Methodist Churches generally, or to particular methodist denominations known as "The Methodist Church of xxx", or to the USA-based denomination known as "The Methodist Church". To reduce confusion, I have renamed the main article to The Methodist Church (USA), and made The Methodist Church a disambiguation page. I have also nominated Category:Bishops of the Methodist Church for renaming to Category:Bishops of the Methodist Church (USA) (see the CFD). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A while ago I spent some time trying to cat various Methodists appropriately. The enormous number and confusing nomenclature of Methodist categories, together with a lack of clarity in some articles about which particular variety of Methodist the subject was, made it a difficult and frustrating task. Anything which reduces the opportunity for confusion and simplifies the categorization of Methodists would be welcomed by me. DuncanHill 13:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Methodist bishops. roundhouse 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Geez, how many of these are there? Xiner (talk, email) 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pakistan movement

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy rename. the wub "?!" 09:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pakistan movement to Category:Pakistan Movement

Rename, as it is a proper noun as per the article at Pakistan Movement. Chicheley 14:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename applies as capitalization error. Otto4711 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Georgia

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename as Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). Xaorjwn 13:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for clarity and ease of use. DuncanHill 15:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom except the third destination should be Category:College radio stations in Georgia (U.S. state); "Radio stations in [x]" is the most common form for geographically focused radio station categories. I'm not enamored of the second either—occupational division by state seems a profoundly bad idea—but that's for a separate and much broader CfD. -choster 16:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I presume this is attempt at a broad and comprehensive renaming scheme. However, there are very few categories noted. I guess the others if they exist shall be named later in a separate CfD. TonyTheTiger 00:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. For clarity. Hmains 03:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tiny Toon Adventures categories

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename per revised nom. Timrollpickering 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename as Tiny Toon Adventures.--Lost96 05:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first should be Category:Tiny Toon Adventures computer and video games per precedent. Otherwise, rename as suggested. -Sean Curtin 06:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and the cvg adjustment per User:Gtrmp. - jc37 10:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Poetry by Iqbal

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep and rename to Category:Poetry by Muhammad Iqbal per this discussion, the one below and conventions. Timrollpickering 12:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already Category:Books by Iqbal and everything in this category is included in that category. Complete duplicate. Otto4711 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless I'm misunderstanding something, poetry and books are seperate topics. A work can be "poetry" but not a book, or it can be a "book" but not be a poem, or it can be both "poetry" and a "book". Therefore it makes sense that when an article is both a book and a work or poetry it would appear in both types of categories. Hence the duplication makes sense, because the categories are naturally independent of each other. Dugwiki 17:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of The Development of Metaphysics in Persia and The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam all of the entries in the Books cat are described as poetry books. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to categorize books of poetry under "Poetry of" cats. If an individual poem is so notable as to merit an article then categorize that under "Poetry of" or better yet "Poems by" which would avoid this sort of confusion entirely, but if it's a book of poetry just put it under books and be done with it. Otto4711 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But again, "Books" and "Poetry" are two entirely seperate concepts that require seperate categories. If something is a "Book", then book categories apply, and if it is also "Poetry" then poetry categories apply. If you delete one or the other you are losing important information - either you are losing the fact that the items are "books" (as opposed to individual short pieces) or you are losing the fact that they are "poetry" (as opposed to prose books). You can't delete either category without improperly removing a flag from the associated articles. Dugwiki 23:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this cat is kept then it needs to be renamed to Category:Poetry by Muhammad Iqbal. Otto4711 18:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can this debate be merged with the debate further down the page here ? DuncanHill 19:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Iqbal categories

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Books by Iqbal to Category:Books by Muhammad Iqbal; delete Category:Iqbal. Timrollpickering 12:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename as Muhammad Iqbal. WestUrban 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per conventions. Chicheley 15:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~ books category per nom. Delete eponymous category. Most of the entries are for books written by Iqbal and even absent the duplication of the books category I'm not convinced that the gentleman has the level of prominence that warrants having a category named for him. Some of the articles included may themselves be candidates for deletion or merge. Otto4711 16:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Category:Books by Muhammad Iqbal is a redirect to Category:Books by Iqbal, so I think that would actually be, what, a reverse merge? Whatever, but yeah, make the full name the main cat and the last name the redirect if necessary. Otto4711 16:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Books by Iqbal to Category:Books by Muhammad Iqbal - Delete Category:Iqbal - As per Otto above, rename the Books category to be consistent with naming conventions for similar book categories. In general, though, individual people should not have their own unique eponymous category. Dugwiki 18:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can this debate be merged with the one further up the page here ? DuncanHill 20:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Natives of West Yorkshire

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natives of West Yorkshire to Category:People from West Yorkshire

Rename for consistency with child cats. BlueValour 04:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Matches all the other county categories. Osomec 08:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Osomec. DuncanHill 15:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as requested and to be consistent with other "people from X" categories. Agent 86 18:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as requested per wiki policy (doesn't this classify as a speedy?) --Bob 00:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No it does not. Chicheley 11:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for breaching the convention for county categories. The renaming should be done for all of them or for none of them. Chicheley 11:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - whether or not someone is a "native" of foo is a fact which can be verified by reliable external sources, per Wikipedia policy. People can only be born in one place, and for notable people that fact is usually on public record; in fact it is essential, elementary info for any biographical article. Whether or not someone is "from" foo is often highly subjective and unverifiable. What are the criteria for saying where a person is "from"? People often have a connection with many locations throughout their life, but if a person is born in one place, brought up in another, attends university in a 3rd, spends their career in 5 different places, and retires to and dies in a 9th location - which one are they "from"? I am genuinely interested. AFAIK there is no Wikipedia policy laying down the criteria as to where a person is "from", and it would be impossible to draw up such a set of criteria in my opinion. --Mais oui! 14:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 'Native of' (precise term) and 'People from' (vague term) are different things. (People from Bradford should not be a subcat of Natives of West Yorkshire; eg Barbara Castle was a native of Derbyshire but brought up in Bradford/Pontefract.) roundhouse 18:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Chicheley. there may be a case for renaming all the subcats of Category:English people by county, but not for renaming only one if them. Also, as per Mais oui's very clear explanation, place of birth is verifiable, but "from xxx" is so vague that it risks being POV. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Manga and anime anti-heroes

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. the wub "?!" 09:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per November 24 and May 13. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per nom Dugwiki 18:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:University of Leiden

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 14:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Leiden to Category:Leiden University

Rename, the main article is now at Leiden University. See also Talk:Leiden University#University of Leiden vs Leiden University. Timrollpickering 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

American television series by decade

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename and prune to US originated shows. Timrollpickering 12:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting from Dec 2 CfD for clarification; it seems some consensus/confirmation over what use is intended for these categories is needed... (If I've missed it, apologies!) David Kernow (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link at the previous Cfd is redlinked. Otto4711 16:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per Otto4711's statment below. — J Greb 00:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment and Suggestion~~ on Otto4711's last comment of previous discussion: the category is 2 years old. It is possible that 2 years ago it seemed the more logical category choice due to there being fewer listings. From both the name as well as the original description, I don't find it impossible at all that the category was originally designed to hold cross-continent syndicated shows, and I don't see it as wrong wanting a category that lists every show that has appeared in the United States. In fact, I personally am more interested in knowing at a glance the shows that have aired in a country (how it is now) than I am where shows originated (what is being proposed) even though others would be interested in the latter. I suggest two actions instead of only one: rename these categories as I suggested in the previous discussion below and a copy-and-purge of the categories to the suggested names per nom. This will allow for both types of categories. I do not consider either category -- one listing aired shows and the other listing originated shows -- as unnecessary. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 23:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your proposal is accepted my feeling is that the categories for programs originating outside the US should be named and described to reflect that and that shows originating in the US should not be listed. But I still think this sets a terrible precedent. There are, what, 200 or so countries in the world and pretty much all of them have television. Establishing categories for Program by Country Aired allows for the potential of listing a hundred or more categories on articles. If it's important to note that a program played in a particular country outside its country of origin then either a list in the article for the show (which is done now) or a "List of international programs syndicated to (country)" would serve as much better repositories. Otto4711 23:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make sure I'm crystal clear on CobraWiki's proposal:
Instead of just 1 category, he proposing 2: One formatted, roughly, [Decade] [Country] television shows covering the year, or years, a show was in production. And the second formatted, roughly, [Decade] television shows aired in Country] covering when, and where a show was actually televised.
Have I goth this right? — J Greb 00:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (or mostly, assuming I missunderstood your meaning of the first category). For clarification, yes I am proposing two category sets instead of just one. If a show was created/first aired in the United States, it would be placed both in the first and second category template-formats that you have just mentioned for the U.S. Your first template matches the rename nom above and the second matches my suggestion in the previous discussion below. However, if a show was created/first aired in the United Kingdom but later came to the U.S. as a syndicated show, it belongs in the second category that you mentioned but not the first (for a U.S. category, at least). Your first template is for only United States-born shows (so to speak). Your second is for any show that has ever aired in the United States reguardless of where it got started. The second is how things are currently handled in these categories, and the nom above is to change the category into the first that you mentioned. I am saying "Why not have both?". — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 03:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you don't want to have both is because with the widespread international syndication of TV shows you could end up with dozens or hundreds of categories on a single article. To go with the Baywatch example again, currently in the Baywatch article there are 21 countries outside the US listed as having aired the show, plus "Latin America." Even restricting the categories to the decades when the show was actually in producion, we're talking as many as 66 categories on the article in addition to the ten that are already currently on it. Does Baywatch really need to be in 76 different categories? Is the fact that Baywatch (or any other American show for that matter) aired in a particular country really so important encyclopedically that there has to be a category for it? If someone is really interested in learning what US shows aired in another country or what non-US shows aired in the US, wouldn't a list of those shows be a better and easier way to find that? Otto4711 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I change my view to Support Rename (though I pitty those who will now need to prune the category!) — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 05:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I wanted to be very clear on those points.
I see a solid reason to have the article grouped by decade(s) of original production and country of origin. It gives a good work up of what that particular audience was seeing first run. It also shows what "home grown" ideas were cropping up.
As for "Why not have both"... Otto puts a pretty fine point on it. The cats for original production are limited, most shows will have only one or two of those cats. The cats for when/where aired are much less limited. Even if it were limited to the US market, there are many articles that would have every cat from their date of first broadcast to the present. Add to that the cats for other markets, and the list at the bottom of the articles would begin to out weigh the content of the article.
While an editor would be within bounds to put up such cats, I wouldn't be surprised to see them listed here for deletion in relatively short order, cited as either "so broad to e virtually worthless" and/or "contributing to category clutter." — J Greb 04:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename with the caveat that shows obviously transcend decades. TonyTheTiger 00:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment television shows should only be categorised by their country of origin. Tim! 07:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion:

Rename, Expand the abbreviation, change "shows" to "series" in line with parent cat and bring name in line with the subcats of Category:Television series by country. Otto4711 15:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tim! 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --musicpvm 22:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - You are actually changing the meaning of the categories. They are not for American TV series, they are for TV series shown in the US, as the title suggests. If you are going to change the name you will have to prune the categories to remove TV shows from other countries, eg the 1960s category contains British series like The Saint, The Avengers and The Prisoner. JW 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are supposed to be based on the country of origin. Shows originating outside the US belong in the category for their own country of origin. Otto4711 13:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not how the category was desiged. The description has always been: "This is a listing of television shows aired in the United States during the 19*0s". By renaming the categories in the way suggested, you are not just orgazing them by country, you are completely changing the meaning of the category. – CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )}

Suggestion. Instead, rename the categories to Category:2000s American-aired television series and so on down the line per decade. This will both organize the categories by country and keep the original purpose of the category in tact. – CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 19:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think those of you opposing this nom are misinterpreting the intent of the categories. I find it impossible to believe that the creators of the categories intended for shows syndicated from other countries to be included in these categories, and if they did then they were wrong in so doing. It makes absolutely no sense from a categorization standpoint to categorize a program that originated in another country an a TV show "in the United States" and it also makes no sense to include a show in one of these categories based on when it aired here in syndication. Consider a show like Monty Python's Flying Circus. It started up in syndication in the US in 1974 and has aired somewhere in the country ever since. Does it really seem beneficial to categorize that program as a TV show in the United States in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and, presumably, beyond? Conversely, you have a show like Baywatch that aired in dozens of countries in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s and will presumably continue to air in reruns. Even limiting it to a first-run timeframe, should Baywatch be categorized under each of the dozens of nations where it aired as a TV show of that nation and decade? You'd end up with potentially hundreds of categories. A local station in my area ran Space: 1999 episodes on New Years Eve 1999. Should Space: 1999 be listed under the 1990s US TV shows category? Clearly, the only categorization scheme that makes any sense is that of country of origin. Renaming accomplishes that. If the category description needs to be edited to clarify that, then edit the description. The idea that because a TV show aired in a particular country it should be included in a category of TV shows for that country is wrong and makes the categories worse than useless. Otto4711 06:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree. I don't object to a rename so long as the category is pruned to reflect the change. JW 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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