Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6

Category:Associations in the United States by state

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 discussion was relisted on jan 14. Kbdank71 15:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Associations in the United States by state to Category:Organizations based in the United States by state

Nominator's rationale: Rename and repurpose. These categories seem to be intended to hold non-profit organizations. However, the name "associations" is confusing, and does not obviously refer to non-profits. The categories seem to have been often used without regard for non-profit status, and a couple categories for "non-profit organizations..." also exist as subcategories of these. The name "organizations" is really used to cover this topic in many, many other categories. These categories should therefore be emptied into new ones covering "organizations" in general, and specific "non-profit" categories should be created in instances where there is need for subcategories. --Eliyak T·C 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Organizations also includes companies. I'm not so sure that we want to do this. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay to include companies as a subset of organizations; companies can still also be categorized in the top-level of the state as desired. Is there a downside to that? --Lquilter (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename - "Organizations" is a good generic term. "Associations" has a slightly different set of meanings, and while one of them is synonymous with "organizations", other meanings are slightly different -- for instance, looser "associations" that are not, per se, organizations. See Association for a sense of the various terms. --Lquilter (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename - Associations conveys professional associations and voluntary associations, which are all non-profit or not-for-profit (which is slightly different, but more or less the same, would all mostly have fairly public-minded purposes and engage in the same causes. Organizations is vague and would naturally include all for-profit businesses, not be a useful category. doncram (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Companies is a subcat of organizations. How is that a problem? (And I'm not sure that "associations" doesn't include commercial -- there are certainly for-profit associations and legal structures that are associations for-profit.) --Lquilter (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposer seems to be saying that the categories appear to have been created to list non-profits mainly. Seems proposer would prefer some name like Non-profits, but that may not be so simple, because in fact there are many public-minded associations that are not-for-profits or technically mutual benefit corporations that are technically different than charitable nonprofits. Associations does group together a lot of pretty similar organizations, and excludes the very different for-profit companies. It doesn't seem logical or helpful to go to Organizations, contrary to apparent purpose of the categories. I am not really that interested, shouldn't have entered in at all. doncram (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't go away just when it's getting interesting! For more organization fun see Category talk:Non-profit organizations and the 12/31 CFD. Substantively -- I agree that associations feels squishier, but when you start picking it apart, it turns out that both orgs and assns are relatively squishy and have a set of overlapping implications and associations. I've tended to go for "organizations" rather than "associations" as the generic, because it seems there are while both assns and orgs have squishy meanings, assns has several non-squishy meanings, but it's not clear which of them would apply at any time. So Orgs as top, with subcats for legal/profit status, purpose, and so on. --Lquilter (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Associations are a type of organization. If you do any digging in the sub cats there you will find a mess. This is group probably is a valid subcat for Category:Organizations. Other areas need attention. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this is certainly a lower-priority task in the mess that is Category:Organizations .... --Lquilter (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Merge per nom; yes an association is a form of organization but alas so is a society, a partnership, a corporation, a band, a sewing circle, an investment club, and myriad others. Other than businesses (generically) really is there sufficient distinction to make that distinction notable between association and organization? I think not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge/Repurpose per nom. In some cases the Association categories have been populated because there was no Organization category for the state. Also set up full set of state sub-cats of Category:Non-profit organizations based in the United States as sub-cats of the renamed categories, & label {{popcat}}.- Fayenatic (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2008 (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:Top scorers in the Commonwealth of Independent States Cup

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: CIS Cup is just a pre-season tournament, I believe there's really no need for this category BanRay 22:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object to the deletion. The tourment is important and big by the number of those comming to the match. The fact that it's short doesn't change that. It was made pre-season because it's more comfortable thats all. I mean,imagine if Zenit, besides struggles with equal teams for the first place in the Russian Premier League, and besides the Europe's Champions League, would also to handle the CIS Cup at the same time? And it's the same about all the other teams participating in the tourment. This tourment is a tourment of those teams who became chempions in the primer leagues of their nations, which means they all have Europes Champions League (some have Asias), and since those are premier clubs in their states they have players who have games is the national team. Those are the reasons it was made pre-season, but that doesnt change the fact that those who are competing in it are champions who represent nations. The teams are sending their best players to those matches (well, for the past years Russian an Ukrainian teams were afraid to send their players to the Olimpiski field, but since this year it's in Sankt Peterburg, they to will send their best players, like till a few years ago). This category makes it comfortable to see those who were esspecialy notable at the tournment. Zqxwce (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ukrainian and Russian teams send their reserves and trialists there, so, apparently, it's no longer taken seriously. For instance, CSKA fielded their youth squad last year, giving priority to the newly-launched Channel One Cup (held at the same time). I've been witnessing the same indifferent attitude in Estonia too. The CIS Cup is merely a friendly pre-season tournament nowadays. BanRay 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but those see it as nor important because they mark themselves higher destanations. But for example for Moldova, Uzbekistan, Latvia, Azerbajan, Georgia... This is the most important team tourment. The Channel One Cup (football) is more attracting for Russia and Ukraine (because they got tired of the dominance in the CIS Cup), but for some teams this cup is the only international competition they can feel important. For example the Transnistrian Moldovan Champion Sheriff Tiraspol, for almost a decade the best Moldovan team, for years they are sending their best players to the cup and for them it's like winning the Champions League. Same thing Pakhator Tashkent. The Latvian teams reached the final many times and lost even thought they used their best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.17.56 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong about Latvia mate, no way the CIS Cup is the most important club competition over there. The game is all about money these days and that's where it loses out. I really doubt anyone still takes it seriously, even Sheriff. BanRay 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OCAT, achievements at individual events is a bad precedent. What's next Category:Top scorers in US college football BCS games by game, by year, .... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is like having a category for the top scorers of each season of the UEFA Champions League or the Royal League. This is overcategorisation to the max. – Pee Jay 22:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OCAT per nom. — Dale Arnett (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (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:Israeli Jews

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 discussion was keep. Kbdank71 15:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category unnecessarily holds the majority (and defining) Israeli ethnic group. By default, any Israeli can be assumed to be Jewish unless it is clarified otherwise. We don't categorize other countries' majority ethnic groups, and with good reason. At worst, this category pushes a political POV. At best, it is useless. Eliyak T·C 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Eliyak T·C 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Eliyak T·C 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until we get rid of Category:American Christians, Category:Pakistani Muslims, Category:Brazilian Roman Catholics, Category:Danish Lutherans, and so on. This can also be seen as a categorization of nationals by religion, which quite consistently exist for majority religions in most nationality categories. A greater percentage of Pakistanis are Muslim than Israelis that are Jewish. There are quite a few Muslim, Christian, agnostic, and atheist Israelis so this category is by no means redundant. Snocrates 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I only have time for a very brief comment right now, so for the moment I will simply point out that this category is an integral part of the larger category structure under Category:Jews by country. Deleting it would thus make no sense, and would leave a major hole in that category structure. Cgingold (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Cgingold. --Wassermann (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This guy is right. For some reason we dont have categories like: "Italian Italians", "Scotish Scots", "German Germans"... and the list can continue. Really a not needed and, sorry, idiotic category. 79.182.142.65 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above reasoning. Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per 79.182.142.65 reasoning. There are Israeli Muslims, Druze, and Christians too. It does seem really redundant, but then again, it's like the whole world, especially the Ford Foundation and the EU, seems to want to rape Israel of it's Jewish character anyway, so the differentiation is legitimate. --Shuki (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relavent category. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Israeli Jews are no different to any other group in Category:Jews by country. And this category is a sub-group of the parent category Category:Ethnic groups in Israel (Jews are a religious group as well as an ethnic group. See the Jew and Judaism articles to explain the two notions.) Yes, Israel is the Jewish state, but as everyone knows it is also host to muliticultural and multi-religious populations of non-Jews as well with over one million official Muslim and Christian Arab Israeli citizens. Indeed, this nomination is very puzzling, as if the nominator is acting unaware that Wikipedia even has an eloborate article about Arab citizens of Israel with an extensive Category:Arab Israelis and those Arab Israelis are by definition mostly Israeli Muslims, and there are in fact some Jewish Israelis who have converted to Islam in Israel and vice versa, which happens all the time and is to be expected. So this category is accurate and important and fulfils the function that all such categories about Jews in country's do. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unnecessary race/ethnic/religion category that serves no real purpose. Are Israeli Jews any different than Israeli non-Jews such that we can make assumptions about all those included in this category that differ from any we would make about all those in Israeli non-Jews categories? A stereotyping of great sweeping scope and one I think WP cannot make without violating WP:V and WP:NPOV, but one which nevertheless the community above seems happy to make those policies notwithstanding. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It borders on insulting to suggest that if someone is Israeli, they can be assumed to be Jewish. The non-Jewish segment of the Israeli population is significant, and has a much higher birth rate (especally the Moslem segment). The direction is that of closer and closer parity in numbers. And no, a Jewish Israeli is not quite the same as an Italian Italian. Haven't the time to spell that out for the fellow who suggested as much. And yes, Israeli Jews are different from Israeli non-Jews. Keep, per the above majority, and the above considered opinions.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The term is also in common use. An exapmle... [1]. Culturalrevival (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeefleche. The nomination is based on a mistaken premise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominator says, we shouldn't categorise a nation's majority religion/ethnic group. Such categories are potentially endless. The fact that other similar categories exist is not a valid reason for keeping (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:43, 12 January 2008 (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:Queen (band) managers

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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 15:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Queen (band) managers to Category:Queen (band)

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Unnecessary subcat, contains only 2 articles and not likely to grow substantially. Is a member of no category other than the parent I suggest merging to. kingboyk (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. IMHO, not enough articles and essentially no likelihood for growth. — Dale Arnett (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (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:Kimchi Crew albums

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 keep per WP:SNOW. If it's empty, it'll be deleted. If it's not, it won't. No need for discussion now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing; only article in category is at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimchi Crew). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the AFD closes - if the album article is kept then the album cat is required per Category:Albums by artist. If the album article is deleted then the category will be empty and eligible for speedy deletion. There is no point in co-nominating the articles and the categories. Otto4711 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2008 (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:Former members of Students for a Democratic Society

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 discussion was rename to Category:Members of Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization). Kbdank71 15:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former members of Students for a Democratic Society to Category:Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization) members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. We don't generally categorize on the basis of current and former membership. Listifying and deleting is also acceptable. Otto4711 (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - but not as proposed. This category pertains specifically to (former) members of the original Students for a Democratic Society. Since that group is now covered in its own article, Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization), the correct name for this category would be Category:Members of Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization), which keeps it distinct from the current, revived SDS members. Cgingold (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the revised rename, assuming that all of the existing articles are for members of the 60s organization. Otto4711 (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked a couple of names I wasn't familiar with, just to be sure, and they all belong in the category. Cgingold (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Cgingold. People should go in people categories, not members stuck in organization categories so titled. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Cgingold. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom revised per Cgingold's suggestion but I still feel that the structure should be "foo members" not "members of Foo." See for instance Category:Musicians by band which is all "(Band name) members" or all of the various sportspeople by team categories that are "Foo players" and not "Players for Foo." Otto4711 (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2008 (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:Warcraft III custom maps

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 discussion was delete. NB, cat is now empty anyways. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Articles on custom maps always fail to pass notability, with the exception of the tower defense map. TheBilly (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & per WP:FICT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (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:Symbolic system

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 discussion was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: delete: This is a single-article category that, since its creation in 2005 has not grown; nor does it today appear to have any potential for growth. (The one article itself is not even long enough for a table of contents!) the Sidhekin (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (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:Multiplayer video games

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 discussion was keep, valid as a category, no consensus to delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful category that would only be pointlessly large if every multiplayer video game was added. SeizureDog (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a perfectly valid category. The category has not grown "pointlessly large", and if it ever did, it would be very easy to grow existing or new sub-categories as appropriate. - Neparis (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unimpressive nom. There might be a case for a split at this level, but straight deletion appears unhelpful. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recognize that whether a video game is person vs. machine or person vs. person is defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2008 (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:Island of Montreal municipalities

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: Withdrawn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Nominator's rationale: This category has remained unpopulated since it was created in the summer of 2005. All it has is a link to Template:Urban agglomeration of Montreal, which, I think, is the reason this cat has been so neglected. The template suits the task perfectly. So do we still need this parallel category? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Further commentary For people not familiar with the Montreal demerger situation, the Urban agglomeration template also closely mirrors another category, Category:Former Montreal boroughs, which I am not recommending we delete. The key difference here is that Montreal proper, which of course is a municipality on the Island of Montreal, is not itself a former borough. But every other city on the island was, at least for a little while. Sorry, it's a little confusing, I know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, per 70.51.10.91. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Former Montreal boroughs was improperly populated, with things that are/were not boroughs. The template does not obviate a category. Ile Dorval is also not part of the Island of Montreal. 70.51.10.91 (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia

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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia to Category:Registered Historic Places in Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category Category:Washington, D.C.. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reparent to Category:District of Columbia. Washington =/= DC. The main list article is called DC, and the category heirarchy is by state (Category:National Register of Historic Places). DC is the appropriate name, not Washington, which is a city. 70.51.10.91 (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom for clarity and consistency and do not reparent. It was previously decided in WP that there wold be only one set of named/categories for this area and it is 'Washington, D.C.'. Category:District of Columbia reflects this fact by being empty. There is no reason to change this now Hmains (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE RENAMING. This may not be entirely rational, but I react by opposing this proposal mainly because it seems to be meddling into an area in which the proposer is not involved. Let WP:NRHP (which i am heavily involved in) and WP:WPDC (which I am not involved in) do what they want, don't come up with proposal from the outside. The chosen identity of the WikiProject District of Columbia is attacked by this proposal, perhaps. Personally, I like the spelt-out wording District of Columbia, as I am being involved in the history aspect of historic places and District of Columbia has a retro, historic, cool ring, while Washington, D.C. is impersonal and uninviting sounding to me. There are a series of articles named List of National Historic Landmarks in the District of Columbia, List of Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia and its many subpages, and so on, that would be affected. The people in WP:NRHP who work on those pages may have feelings that are not represented here. doncram (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the extent that you say this has been discussed and decided before, I question who was involved in that discussion. It would help perhaps if you provided exact links to the prior discussion records. doncram (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, the effect of the proposal is to change some of the categories involved in District of Columbia, but not other usage, not adding value and creating future conflict. You or others would be suggesting article name changes and/or reversion of the category names back to District of Columbia, forever. I think it would be reasonable for you, first, to take it up with WP:WPDC to change the name of that WikiProject. Take on changing all of the titles of the articles using District of Columbia in their name as well. (Could you or someone please provide a list of all of those? ) doncram (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 151 hits in Wikipedia search on "Category: District of Columbia" from "Category: District of Columbia politicians", to lists of attorney generals, routes, high schools, U.S. navy ships, and so on, as well as many categories of articles associated with WikiProject District of Columbia. Why change this one. Seems like District of Columbia usage is in wide practice. doncram (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, i don't see why you should be butting in. If you do have involvement in WP:WPDC and in WP:NRHP and in the articles that will be affected, please explain. doncram (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since anybody is allowed to edit any article on Wikipedia, proposals like this shouldn't be seen as "butting in", per WP:OWN. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) are every Wikipedian's business. Category naming conventions, for the most part, take precedence over the desires of individual WikiProjects. Of course individual members of WikiProjects should certainly have a say, and WikiProjects should be informed about proposed renames that affect them, so they can discuss any concerns they have and possibly mount an argument in defense of their preferred category name. Katr67 (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology I am sorry I said that, it was harsh and not right of me to say that, and I apologize. doncram (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for consistency with the current wording. Any proposal for renaming the D.C. series as a whole should be undertaken separately, and about which I have no opinion. FWIW, ~~I'm a member of WP:NRHP~~I have been a member of WP:NRHP. Katr67 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I think this says it all. Washington, D.C., seems to be the preferred name by residents even though the Federal Government seems to hold onto the District of Columbia name. I am an active member of the WP:NRHP clariosophic (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a non-American, it is my understanding the that the City of Washington and the District of Columbia are co-extensive. If so, only one set of categories is needed. Any with other version of the name should be redirects. I leave it to the locals to decide which it should be. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2008 (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:Images of District of Columbia

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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Images of District of Columbia to Category:Images of Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent. The current form is also wrong since it should be Category:Images of the District of Columbia. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reparent to Category:District of Columbia. Washington =/= DC. If any images are of DC and not part of Washington, then it would be improperly categorized. 70.51.10.91 (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge Category:Images of the White House into Category:White House, then delete Category:Images of District of Columbia and it's remaining (empty) subcategories.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Category:Images of the White House is already a child of Category:White House these is no need to merge. If anything, the images in Category:White House should be moved to Category:Images of the White House. I'm going to remove Category:Images of District of Columbia from Category:Images of the White House since it is an included child from the parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, see my oppose vote and comments re similar proposal to rename "Category:Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia" above. Also, should this be Images "in" rather than "of"? Not all of the images are aerial views depicting the entire district, they are not images of the district they are images of places "in" the district. I have not reviewed what is practice for other image categories, though. doncram (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2008 (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:Banning High School football 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 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. Kbdank71 15:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we want to start categorizing athletes by high school. The parent category, Category:High school football players, is for players like Tami Maida who only or most notably played in high school, but this category is apparently for players who achieved noteworthiness after going to this high school.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom playing high school football is not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as inherently non-notable and non-defining. — Dale Arnett (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this defines over categorization. If these are notable players (looks like some went on to the NFL) a mention in a notable alum section on the school's page would be appropriate though.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (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:Radio stations in Bemidji, Minnesota

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: empty category, over categorization Rtphokie (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would only ever include KBSB, KKZY, WBJI, KLLZ, KKBJ-AM, and KKBJ-FM. OK, so it could have six entries, but again, I can't get excited over having a category this small when Category:Radio stations in Minnesota isn't full. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Overcategorization. JPG-GR (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; make a template if need-be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Carlos. — Dale Arnett (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (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:Defunct radio stations in Des Moines

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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: empty category, over categorization Rtphokie (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Category:Defunct radio stations in the United States is plenty good for the time being. JPG-GR (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (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:Musicals by nationality

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 discussion was delete all, including chicago. Kbdank71 15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All of the "Musicals by nationality" categories seemed like a decent idea over at WikiProject Musical Theatre where they are maintained but have proven to me more of a hassle than they are worth. It is difficult to classify a musical by nationality due to their collaborative writing nature and multiple performance locations. In multiple discussions (available here for clarity) the editors had found difficulty choosing which category to add to which article.

For example, the musical Miss Saigon was written with French and Tunisian composers, an American lyricist, premered in London, has been performed the longest in New York and takes place in Vietnam. So which category does it get? This example was only the tip of the iceberg.

Obviously some musicals may fit into a specific category more than others and some categories may have more entries, however to avoid systemic bias, all should be deleted. --omtay 38 00:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Noroton (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC) I chimed in while the nomination was still being added to, apparently, but my opinion is unchanged. Noroton (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This has been a thorn in my side for months! — Music Maker 5376 01:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since they will clearly be very difficult to use and even the wikiproject doesn't want to maintain them. LeSnail (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Rtphokie (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've never seen the utility in these. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even before reading the comments I thought good grief now they're trying to assign nationality to musicals? What a nightmare. No collaborative work should be given a nationality (I don't like any private citizen works being given a nationality, I must say.) --Lquilter (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 10:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Plenty of other ways to classify musicals. Dafyd (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per discussion, etc.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 10:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Has Chicago seceeded...? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Category:Chicago musicals is malplaced in this cfd possibly because it was malplaced under the parent Category:American musicals for over a half a day as per the history. When I realized that the category Category:American musicals was for musicals by from American creators I did not want this to be a category for musicals created by Chicagoans. Instead the category was moved to be parented by Category:Musicals just like Category:Broadway musicals, Category:London West End musicals, and Category:Off-Broadway musicals. It should be handled just like those categories although it may take me a few days to get it more populated. I am going to remove the deletion notice for this reason. I also vote for deletion of the category at issue and its subcategories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The removed category has been re-listed separately for deletion. Note: Please do not remove content from deletion discussions without prior discussion and ensuing consensus. --omtay38 02:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I've replaced the category. The above discussion was on the group nomination as a whole and those participating in the discussion made their determination on the group as a whole. If you have an objection to one of the categories being considered, you can't come along and remove it from the list. You have to join the discussion. — Music Maker 5376 03:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. To be clear, my comment applies to the Chicago category as well - but not to the unnominated Categories for Broadway or the West End, which I would consider a different animal if nominated. --TheOther Bob 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The interests of the musicals project are not the only valid consideration here — the needs of the various national theatre categories need to be taken into account as well. The Drowsy Chaperone, Starmania, Anne of Green Gables - The Musical and Billy Bishop Goes to War, frex, most certainly must be somehow reflected in Category:Theatre in Canada — how, exactly, do you propose to meet that need if Category:Canadian musicals is deleted? This is not a trivial need. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment here is somewhat confusing. I shall try to clarify: the category Category:Theatre in Canada (like the others) is ambiguous in its intent. Does it apply to musicals by canadian authors? musicals performed in canada? musicals about canada? The terms are just to broad to find some concrete way of using these categories. Does this help? Also, you may note that users not part of WikiProject Musical Theatre have commented above also. --omtay 38 06:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would musicals be any different from novels or movies in that regard? A book is categorized as a Canadian novel if it's written by a Canadian author. It is not categorized as a Canadian novel just because it gets published in Canada or is wholly or partially about Canada, if the writer isn't a Canadian. Why are musicals somehow more complicated? And the fact remains that as quite possibly the single most important theatrical work in the entire history of Canadian theatre, Billy Bishop Goes to War simply cannot be isolated from the Category:Theatre in Canada tree. So how do you suggest we solve that problem? Bearcat (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In part it is more complicated because, unlike a play, a movie or book doesn't keep getting re-written or re-shot, and many more people and places could lay claim to some part of it. (There are no community author groups doing their own version of "As I Lay Dying," in other words.) So we could perhaps have "Plays by Canadian playwrights," "Plays set in Canada," or "Plays first performed in Canada." But Canadian Musicals is just...undefined (and might include all of the above, or maybe any play ever performed in Canada.) I think the goal here is to find a better category - it sounds like the better one you'd propose is "Musicals by Canadian playwrights?" --TheOther Bob 07:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Staging a production of a musical doesn't change the work's nationality, unless the particular staging significantly alters the work to the point where it probably shouldn't even be considered the same work anymore anyway. Billy Bishop Goes to War, IOW, didn't suddenly become an American or a British play just because it was staged in those countries after its original Canadian run. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And nationality is determined by the nationality of the playwright, right? That seems like a valid way to describe some hypothetical category that I could support - but it's not what these categories are. Rather, because they're vague, people have done exactly what you suggest they shouldn't - claim, for example, that Wicked is a "Chicago Musical" because it's been staged in Chicago. The Pirate Queen is apparently a French Musical on this list, which is itself a bit hard to explain since I believe it's in English, about an English pirate, premiered in New York with American and English producers, directors (I think), and cast, and the authors (while French) were working in America at the time. If the category were "Musicals by French playwrights," then The Pirate Queen would fit into it pretty well. But a "French Musical?" I don't know - I'd call it a "Broadway Musical." That's why I think we'd do better with something more specific, at minimum. --TheOther Bob 08:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add another complicated example to TheOtherBob's, Whistle Down the Wind (musical) has music by Andrew Lloyd Webber, British, lyrics by Jim Steinman, American, set in America, workshopped in Britain, premiered in Washington, D.C., radically reworked and opened in London in a considerably different form with a different creative team. Pick a nationality...! Another- Les Misérables (musical). Best known in its London production, by a British producer and British creative team, with lyrics by a Brit... but it was first written and produced in France, with French lyricist and composer. Yet it has none of the significance of a French musical that it has as a British musical. I agree, Bearcat, that in some cases the nationality of a musical is very important... but it's nigh on impossible to define most of the time. I hope you can see where the confusion - and the desire to remove confusion - originates. - Dafyd (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the ambiguous cases are not the majority; the majority of musicals are both clearcut and of very high importance to their native country's theatre industries. You're pretending that the exceptions invalidate the entire basis of the category system, which is about as valid as saying that we should never categorize anybody as LGBT on here because David Bowie and Morrissey are ambiguous. Bearcat (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not clearcut. Not by any stretch of the imagination. If the majority were clearcut, we wouldn't be deleting these categories. The exceptions DO invalidate these categories. Over the summer, I was infoboxing and recategorizing these articles, and I wanted to throw my computer through a wall, there were so many judgment calls involved in categorizing them by nationality. This simply isn't a viable way to categorize the articles. — Music Maker 5376 13:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to the extent that they are clearcut, it may be because you define these categories differently, Bearcat. I think that you have a definition for whether to include a musical in these categories, based on, for example, nationality of author or location of first performance. But if that's true...why not just go with a category description like nationality of author or location of first performance? If it's not true, and the nationality of a musical is something larger or more amorphous...then what is it? That's what we're struggling with here. Here's one way we could move it along - if you can define what you mean when you talk about a "Canadian musical," that might help us understand. --TheOther Bob 15:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the proposed separate Category:Chicago musicals CFD debate below this line.

Comment. A point has been made above that Category:Chicago musicals should not be considered with the other categories nominated. I closed the CfD discussion that was started for this single category since this discussion was still active. To aid the closing admin, if you see any reason why Category:Chicago musicals should be treated differently, please state your reasons. Otherwise this one entry will be closed in the same way as all of the other categories in this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENTI hope all who have voted are following along. All categories except for one in this CFD are of the format Category:Fooian musicals for the purpose of grouping all musicals created by Fooian people where Foo is the name of a country. Thus, the debate at hand can use one argument to address all of these categories simultaneously. Not only is Category:Chicago musicals different in the sense that Chicago is not a country, but also it is different in that the category is not for the purpose of grouping musicals created by Chicagoans. Instead, Category:Chicago musicals is for the purpose of grouping musicals that have production runs in Chicago. It may be the case that some arguments in the discussion at issue here may pertain to Chicago musicals. However, many arguments for and against this category are not the same. Regardless of whether you feel Category:Chicago musicals the category should be deleted, it is impossible to fairly consider the relevance of this category when lumped in with a whole bunch of categories that I not only agree should be deleted, but that this category was has been removed from before these categories were proposed for CFD. Category:Chicago musicals was removed from the subcategory Category:American musicals because that category is for musicals created and produced by Americans and Category:Chicago musicals is not a category for musicals created and produced by Chicagoans. It is a category for musicals with production runs in Chicago. Whether it is a significant enough city to warrant such a category is freely debatable and appropriate for a separate CFD (IMO), but it is a different debate than a debate on Category:Fooian musicals categories for the purpose of grouping all musicals created by Fooian people. My point is not to say whether Category:Chicago musicals should be kept. I repeat, even if you feel it should be deleted, I request that you support a clear and open separate discussion of the merits of a category about geographically specific production runs apart from the pitfalls of the categories at issue here. It is being unfairly grouped with categories with which it does not belong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I would suggest - but am happy to have my opinion changed - that classifying musicals based on whether or not they have performed in Chicago fails WP:NOTE. The categories for Category:Broadway musicals, Category:London West End musicals, and Category:Off-Broadway musicals are important because, per West End theatre, "along with New York's Broadway theatre, West End theatre is usually considered to represent the highest level of commercial theatre in the English speaking world". Chicago theatre, apparently, is not considered as such. The productions shown in Chicago tend to be shown there as part of a national tour - and no one is suggesting we classify musicals according to every city they have played in (Category:Rochester musicals, for example, starts getting ridiculous...) - but if we introduce Category: Chicago musicals, we have to introduce them all. I appreciate TonyTheTiger's concerns that musicals that are currently important to Chicago theatre be represented appropriately, but equally, frankly, Chicago theatre is not important enough on a global scale to be represented as a category on every show that has played in the city. If, in the future, Chicago develops into a major producing/receiving city, as Broadway and the West End currently are, then by all means add a category. But at the moment, I'm afraid, I just don't think it cuts it. - Dafyd (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply in truth there can only be one highest level city for production runs. In America, New York is it. However, note the following among others played in Chicago before New York:The Pirate Queen, The Producers, Movin' Out (musical), Mamma Mia!, Aida, All Shook Up, Sweet Smell of Success, Tallulah, A Thousand Clowns, Sweet Charity, Spamalot, and Blast!. Again, note your argument is a different one from whether musicals produced and created by Chicagoans should be a category. Since your argument is different, I would like the opportunity to defend the category without being pulled into the muck of the arguments against the categories at issue. The purpose of this category is so that experts on all things Chicago (such as the longest running musical in the History of Chicago, which Wicked is) will be able to find such articles and help them progress. I noticed Wicked at WP:FAC and tagged it under {{ChicagoWikiProject}} because I felt Chicago editors might have a natural interest in the longest running musical in the history of Chicago. I.e., it is an article that would naturally attract Chicagotropic editors who can help such as myself. I created the category Category:Chicago musicals so that our bot that checks twice a week for categories at WP:CHIBOTCATS will keep our project informed of similar such articles. I am a fairly accomplished editor on WP and many good editors come by WP:CHICAGO especially WP:CHIDISCUSS to get involved in articles I think they may be interested in. Like all articles with categories listed at WP:CHIBOTCATS, it is an article where a Chicagoan may be inclined to help the article. Wicked is certainly an article where certain specific knowledge on the industry may help in editing, but it is not required to edit. The most attention for WP:CHICAGO articles is paid to former WP:CHICOTWs, Category:FA-Class Chicago articles and Category:GA-Class Chicago articles. Wicked is a WP:GA. An article that reaches GA with the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} will be read by many people some of whom may help if it remains in a category that we follow. You may notice sections at WP:CHIGA and WP:CHIFC set up to let people know the newest articles to check up on. Our project has a track record at improving articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/COTW/Good Articles). We can help. I can tell by the inept efforts at responding to a very basic auto peer review that some of our experience would be useful. Why would we give it? We would give it because it falls under our interest in all things Chicago. Is Wicked, the longest running musical in the history of our city, part of all things Chicago? Yes. Should a category exist for it to be identified as such. This is a different question than should musicals created by Chicagoans exist. I am requesting a separate CFD for that discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that shows, yes, get a run in Chicago before they get to Broadway. However, Chicago is not their ultimate destination. No producer says "Chicago, here we come!" There are shows that don't make it to Broadway, but that's because Chicago is a "try-out town". As much as you seem to know about Chicago, that might be something more known to people who regularly edit articles on musicals. — Music Maker 5376 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just to be clear, I support the deletion of all of the categories in this nomination. — Music Maker 5376 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear. This request for separation is not a discussion of whether Chicago should be kept or deleted, but a clarificaiton of whether people understand its discussion entails different issues than the other categories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I understand your rationale for its separation and, nonetheless, voted for its deletion at its separate CfD. — Music Maker 5376 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My !vote applies to all. The Chicago category has the same basic problem as the others - no one knows what goes in it. Tony here seeks to come up with his own definition for all these categories, and to do so in such a way as to separate Chicago from the others. But his ad hoc definitions are really just his own - at the end of the day there is no such thing as a Chicago Musical in the same way as there is no such thing as a French Musical. We can't define it, so we can't categorize it. Incidentally, I fail to see the relevance of Tony's boasting and personal attacks about the "ineptness" of other reviewers, but suffice it to say that I disagree and wish that he would edit more civilly. Tony, please consider spending more time talking about articles, and less time comparing yourself to other people. --TheOther Bob 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT It is to be noted that much of this controversy sparked over the tagging of the Wicked (musical) article with the WikiProject Chicago tag because of this category being placed on it. The reasoning given several times is that Wicked is the "Longest running Musical in Chicago History." Well, Wicked is actually the longest running Broadway musical in Chicago history. (per http://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=19445 broadwayworld.com]. According to this article the longest running musical in Chicago history (broadway or not) was Forever Plaid that played for six years, far surpassing Wicked's run. The claim that Wicked is "The Longest Running Broadway musical in Chicago" is merely a marketing ploy. Just something to be aware of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omtay38 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like the producers of the show wouldn't even place it in Category:Chicago musicals. — Music Maker 5376 17:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is quite clear that User:TheOtherBob has not even read the main category Category:Musicals by nationality. The category clearly states in its introductory sentence: "This category sorts musicals into subcategories by nationality. In this context, a musical's nationality refers to the nationality of its creators or the country of first production, as opposed to where the musical's story is set or what countries the musical has toured." The Category:Chicago musicals is not for musicals created by Chicagoans for for musicals whose first production was in Chicago. It is not for musicals set in Chicago. It is for musicals that have toured Chicago and have had any production run in Chicago. It is for musicals like those brought to Chicago by Broadway in Chicago. I would ask that Bob learn the intended use of categories before getting involved in their deletion debates. If he does so he will learn the difference between an ad hoc definition and one that is clearly stated in the category at issue so that it applies to all its subcategories. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's quite clear that you're not paying attention to what Bob is saying. He's saying that both the Musicals by nationality cat and the Chicago musicals cat have equally tenuous inclusion criteria, not that the criteria is the same. — Music Maker 5376 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Tony, man, I'm glad to work with you - but can we stick to the issues and stop the personal stuff? Other than being a bit annoyed by what I consider personal attacks on others (and having called you on it, because I think you should stop), I don't see why we would have any personal animosity. We clearly disagree, and I think your view here is flat wrong. But that doesn't mean I think badly of you - I just think you're wrong this time. So why not try telling me why I'm wrong (rather than why I'm not qualified to hold my opinion). We might make more progress that way.

So to the point - the definition of French Musicals is vague, just like Chicago Musicals. Tony's point appears to me to be that they're vague in a slightly different way because he would define Chicago Musicals differently. That's fair enough, but both types of categories would still be meaningless. French Musicals, Chicago Musicals, Bolivian Musicals, Peorian Musicals - none of these means anything. There is no such animal as a Chicago Musical, in the same way that there is no such animal as a French Musical. There's therefore no reason to treat those categories differently.

In any event, some of this is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. What if we accepted Tony's view and definition and did split the discussion? I'd definitely still argue for deletion of Chicago Musicals - even if "Chicago Musical" means what is suggested here, there is no reason to have a category for every place a musical has played. As others have pointed out, we'd need a category for "Ft. Lauderdale Musicals," among thousands of others - it'd be a mess. So I feel like whether we deal with it at the same time or separately is really just a question of whether we should delete this category now or a week from now - and I don't feel strongly one way or the other on that. (I'd just like to save everyone's effort if we don't need a separate debate.) --TheOther Bob 21:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying you are unqualified unconditionally. I am saying that someone who has not done his due diligence (such as understanding what purpose a category serves) is not qualified. Do you think we should have people running around deleting categories that they don't understand? There is nothing personal about pointing out that you did not understand the category at issue when you didn't. Don't make me look like the bad guy because you did not do your homework. I don't know anything about Category:French musicals except that it is a subcategory of Category:Musicals by nationality, which clearly states in its introductory sentence: "This category sorts musicals into subcategories by nationality. In this context, a musical's nationality refers to the nationality of its creators or the country of first production, as opposed to where the musical's story is set or what countries the musical has toured." Category:Chicago musicals is not a subcategory of this category and is not a member of the categories that sort musicals by nationality of creators. . . Thus, since Category:Chicago musicals is not a member of the class of categories at issue I am asking for a separate CFD. As for the Ft. Lauderdale argument. Please name musicals that played in Ft. Lauderdale before playing on Broadway before placing this category in the same class. I have named about a dozen musicals that played in Chicago before New York. I think the list of cities that have hosted a list of notable musicals that have gone on to Broadway is no where near as extensive as a list of all cities that have hosted national tours. A national tour by a national touring company and a production run is a different thing. I grew up in Buffalo, New York. National touring companies perform broadway plays there at Shea's Performing Arts Center for weekends all the time. My mom was a regular usher there. I am not asking for a category that lists acts that have played a weekend at the Chicago Theatre. This category is an entirely different animal. It should not include quick runs of national tours. The border would be something like The Color Purple (musical) that had a six month run in Chicago. I am not a theatre buff so my distinction may not use the proper terminology, but I hope you see my point. Anyways, the debate is entirely different than the debate about a category that would list Musicals created or produced by Chicagoans, which would be the category that would be properly administered by this CFD. I am not saying that the category should or should not be kept. All I am saying is that it is kind of a weak argument to say it is a bit to much trouble to properly consider it separately because it would save everyone's effort not to. Since you say you don't feel strongly one way or the other, I would like to request a separate CFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I can only do what I can do -- if you're committed to a style of argument that involves personal attacks, it's really more your loss than anyone else's. In any event, I'm not trying to make you look like the bad guy here - but I do think you are looking like the bad guy, and really wish that would motivate you to be more civil. Like I've said many times - I'd like to be able to work with you, but no one wants to work with someone who treats other people badly. So, to your comment, I could "defend my honor," note the "homework" I've done on this issue and that argue about whether I "understand" the categories at issue - but why bother? That's really just an argument ad hominem, and I don't need to show the fallacy of it.

To the issue: are there musicals that have started in Ft. Lauderdale? I'm sure there are - there are musicals that have started in Atlanta, Boston (tons of them, frankly), Los Angeles, and I believe Hartford, to name just the ones I've been involved with or can think of off the top of my head... There are also shows that have had long runs in Las Vegas, Atlanta, Boston, probably Ft. Lauderdale...you get the point. I think what you're trying to say is that you want this category to mean "Musicals that have had an open-ended run in (City)." Even defined that way, I think this is a pointless and unmanageable category. As I said before, like with French Musicals, there just isn't such an animal as a "Chicago Musical" and we could easily, therefore, deal with this at the same time as the others. But - well, why not let others weigh in on that. Like I said, I would consider it a waste of time, and think we can save what seems like a lot of wikidrama if we just deal with this all together. But it's really a question of how much of this the community wants to bother with. --TheOther Bob 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. sticking to the point. I think you are saying that there are Broadway musicals and West End musicals and then other musicals are all indistinguishable in a manageable way. I also think you are saying that those cities that are distinguishable from others may warrant categories. I believe if you look at an article like The Color Purple (musical), its infobox seems to indicate there were two editions. One was cast for NY and another was cast for Chicago. I think the way to distinguish Category:Chicago musicals is by saying shows with versions cast for Chicago. I believe Wicked (musical) uses captions identifying the Chicago cast. A musical may tour everywhere but it will have a limited number of casts. In essence you are saying Category:Broadway musicals is a valid one because although there are numerous cities where it shows Broadway has its own cast. In essence a Category:Musicals by casting/production city is where Broadway lies. This category would most appropriately be used for cities in which musical editions are cast. Subsequent touring cities like Ft. Lauderdale, Buffalo, Atlanta would not have categories unless there was a casting for that city. If Chicago is not distinguishable in this way I fold, but I think it is when looking at the infoboxes' production sections. I do not see why any city deserves to be a subcategory of Category:Musicals other than for having versions cast there. Look at the infoboxes and find me several from Ft. Lauderdale, or Atlanta. Vegas may in fact have its own castings and in fact deserve a category by this def. I don't know. I think by this def no more than 5 or 6 American cities will survive, but look at the number of infoboxes that have Chicago casting productions. I have yet to see Atlanta, Boston, or Ft. Lauderdale.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's closer to a workable way to define a category, but I do see a problem - although not in an infobox, there may well be an Atlanta casting of Wicked at some point. It's not really the Alliance Theatre's speed, but you never know. (They did premiere Aida, after all.) Les Miserables is perhaps the classic example of this problem - there's (I believe) a Dutch cast, a Finnish cast, a French cast, etc. (Interestingly, there are also Las Vegas castings of shows. There are even Las Vegas versions of shows - because the audience is thought to have a shorter attention span. Seriously.) Still, even then we have an easier time with major musicals because their productions are larger and less likely to go to smaller houses - we run into still worse problems with things like (to pick something at random) Naked Boys Singing. I could definitely see the 14th Street Playhouse in Atlanta casting a long-running production of that (if they could get over the...nakedness). But calling that an Atlanta Musical would be tough - particularly since there's also likely to eventually be one in Seattle, San Francisco, et al. The bottom of that page could be a category-fest, with dozens of categories listed. And then we deal with smaller professional theater groups doing extended runs in small cities - like Ft. Lauderdale. (You could almost ask which regional theater didn't do Into the Woods, for example.) I guess the argument against including those shows in "Ft. Lauderdale Musicals" is that they aren't notable productions...but...that begs the question. Is the Chicago version truly notable? The Atlanta version? To decide, we essentially have to make the prior decision that "open-ended runs in these (let's say) four cities - but only these four cities - get their own category." I'm not sure that's impossible - there is a reason we mention the Chicago run of Wicked but not the West Springfield High production of Into the Woods. But it requires a decision about the status of Chicago in theater that I don't think we can make. Or, to put it another way, there's such thing as a Broadway Musical and a West End Musical, but no such thing as a Chicago Musical.

However (if you've read this far), talking through this leads me to wonder if there might be room for a category about shows that were tried out in Chicago (which I think was part of the definition you offered above). Maybe that's too much trivia to be a category - but the benefit would be that a show would only end up in one or two categories (rather than the potential dozens of places with runs). And I can imagine wanting to look up all the shows that were tried out in Boston, since so many traditionally were. I haven't really thought it through - maybe that approach works, and maybe it doesn't. (If we did go that route, of course, I think we'd be well-advised to change the name of the category to reflect what it was meant to include - Chicago Musicals remains too vague.) Let me know your thoughts. --TheOther Bob 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, many Broadway productions have opened in other cities. I would not see this a defining for the production. However it could be defining for the cities with the most. So using that for a category would be difficult. However a List of cities where Broadway shows opened might be useful. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on using cats to define cities that have tried out musicals is that it would probably end up being a little systemic bias-y. I don't know if we necessarily have a source for older shows that says, for example, The Amorous Flea had try-out runs in Philly, Boston, New Haven, etc.... The newer shows would be the ones to populate those categories. I'm sure those sources are out there, I just don't know if they're in enough abundance to warrant the categories.

As Vegas said above, I'm not sure if their try-out towns are necessarily a defining quality of the show. However, they would be a defining quality for the city. Why not Category:Cities hosting try-out productions of eventual Broadway or West End musicals? I'm not really sure if that's a viable category -- I don't see why anyone would ever need it or want to append such a lengthy and useless title to an article -- but it's out there.... — Music Maker 5376 14:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to post comments at the Wicked FAC on my thoughts on castings. This may help in a meaningful way. It is based solely on my recollection of the two currently-running hit musicals (Jersey Boys and Wicked (musical)) and the most recently newsworthy one The Color Purple (musical).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you film buffs clarify the terms Chicago engagements and original engagements used distinctly at http://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=19445 . --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "Chicago run" would refer either to a touring production ~~that stayed a little longer than intended~~ or what's commonly referred to as a "sit down production" -- a production associated with the Broadway production (same producers) in Chicago while a production is on Broadway. An "Original production" would be a production of either an original musical or a musical that ran on Broadway (or tried to), but it would have a new producer, cast, director, designer, etc. — Music Maker 5376 18:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck because it refers to any touring production, not just one that extended its engagement. — Music Maker 5376 18:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the proposed separate Category:Chicago musicals CFD debate above this line.

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:Rebel slaves in Ancient Rome

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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rebel slaves in Ancient Rome to Category:Rebel slaves in ancient Rome — Snocrates 11:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why the proposed rename category for this has been created — it did not exist at the time of the nominations! Snocrates 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator) So now I'm essentially proposing a merge to the newer category. Snocrates 07:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom "Ancient Rome" is not a compound proper noun, it is an adjective (lower case) followed by a proper noun. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2008 (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:Voice teacher

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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Voice teacher to Category:Voice teachers — pluralize. Otto4711 (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure (IANAL), but due to a previous splitting off of the text of the category, the cat may need to be retained with a cat redirect, to preserve edit history (since a category being renamed is essentially deleted and recreated). - jc37 01:47, 1 January 2008 (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:Decline of Hinduism Buddhism Sikhism in Pakistan

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 discussion was delete, topic/scope is not one readily amenable to categorisation. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Decline of Hinduism Buddhism Sikhism in Pakistan to Category:Decline of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism in Pakistan — Snocrates 11:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as the category should probably just be deleted. Including three different religious groups in the same category is too wide a net. Otto4711 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Otto4711 Alloranleon (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't really too wide a net, just a very oddly shaped one. I suppose these are the main three religions to have "declined" in Pakistan, but I don't see any good reason to put these particular topics together in one category.LeSnail (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator) Now that this has been moved to a full CFD, I agree that it should be deleted. I just proposed a speedy rename because the caps and grammar were so bad and I was too tired at the time to propose deletion. Snocrates 07:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a useful category perhaps an Category:Islamicization of Pakistan would be, however. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2008 (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:Jat people Organisations

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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jat people Organisations to Category:Jat people organisations — Snocrates 11:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mild oppose as I'm not understanding why it should be "Jat people organisations" rather than just "Jat organisations". Otto4711 (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Because the article is at Jat people not at Jat which is a dab for the Serbian airline and other things... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2008 (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:Alchemical apparatus

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 discussion was rename to Category:Alchemical tools per counter-proposal; for consistency with parent cats. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alchemical apparatus to Category:Alchemical apparatuses — Snocrates 05:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this perhaps be Category:Alchemical tools to match the two parents? Otto4711 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but consistency isn't a speedy rename criterion. This nom was simply to convert singular to plural, which is a criterion above. Snocrates 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, oppose because this should be renamed to tools to match the parents. Otto4711 (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While apparatuses is a correct plural, apparatus can be used as a collective noun, so that the plural is unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Alchemy tools to match others in the tool parent and Alchemy parent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2008 (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:Relationship counselling

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 discussion was rename as nominated, for consistency with parent & related categories. Retain however the 'old' cat as a soft cat redirect. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Relationship counselling to Category:Relationship counseling - Spelling fix consistent with other related categories. Cgingold (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose speedy "Counselling" is not a spelling error; British and American users may spell it differently. Should go to full CFD to change. Snocrates 22:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't say it was an error, this is about consistency -- the other related categories spell it with one "L", and so does the main article, Relationship counseling. Cgingold (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistency" isn't a speedy rename criterion above. "Typographical error" is, so I assumed that's what it was being nominated under. If the nom is for consistency, it should go to a full CFD, which was my original point. Snocrates 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename slowly for consistency with Category:Counseling. LeSnail (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to match the parent cat and all articles in Category:Counseling. Hmains (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Snocrates. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Snocrates - Neparis (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could we please have the reasoning behind opposing the rename? I don't think it makes any sense for one single category to be out of alignment with it's main article and the other related categories. I could care less about US or UK spelling -- if it was the other way around, I would still be requesting the lone exception be renamed for consistency. Is there some other issue I'm not seeing?

Also, I think there may be some confusion here: Snocrates didn't say he was opposed to renaming, he merely pointed out that it didn't really qualify for speedy renaming and wanted it taken here for a full-blown CFD. Cgingold (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (original opposer). That's right — I have no problem with renaming it for consistency, but I do want all the "traditional English-language spelling" activists to have their say. I agree that I don't think it's useful for anyone to oppose "per Snocrates" now that it has left the speedy section. Snocrates 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for the sake of consistency. For what it's worth, I was the original creator of this category, and I feel the same way about this as Cgingold. In this case, there does not seem to be any intent to enforce U.S. spelling, and it makes more sense that the subcategory title should be changed to be the same as the article and parent category spelling, rather than renaming them to match the subcategory. -- The Anome (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP is not consistent in its naming between British & American spellings or even diction, so in general, unless the concept relates primarily to one geography, we keep the first correct spelling. Since the spelling is correct in a variety of English, even if inconsistent with many other categories in the same, we keep it. I have refered to this as WP's quirky patchwork in the past and it's a better system than placing each spelling or diction choice to the consensus of who shows up here to weigh in. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're overlooking the fact that the main article uses the American spelling, and we do make a point of keeping Category names consistent with their main articles. Cgingold (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The category should match the main article Relationship counseling and the parent Category:Counseling. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2008 (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:Limited Edition Pens

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 discussion was merge into Category:Pens. Kbdank71 15:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Limited Edition Pens to Category:Limited Edition pens. Caps. — Snocrates 14:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear as to why the E in Edition should remain capitalized. Otto4711 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must have missed where these are all proper names of Montblanc's Limited Edition pens. If kept, maybe we can jimmy the category so it displays in cursive font, too. --Lquilter (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you jest :) The proper name is irrelevant here; these are all merely "limited edition" pens and if it stays the category name should be lower case. --kingboyk (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I forgot my smiley icon. The LE pen articles have all hit AFD, btw. AFD --Lquilter (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Limited edition pens or merge to Category:Pens (since "limited edition" is an unusual feature to categorise by, imho). --kingboyk (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is like a Montblanc advertising category. There are 8 articles on various Montblanc pens. Come on, are there eight Montblanc "special edition" series pens that are really notable? I think these are strong AFD possibilities -- I don't see a cite among them and don't really recall any NYT coverage of "Montblanc America's Signatures for Freedom pens", for instance. Then there is the generic article on fountain pen, the article on Montblanc the company, and the article on ST Dupont (another company that does pens, among other things). That's it. Kill this category, because it is clear that if inappropriate articles were deleted there would be no need for this category. --Lquilter (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it seems like a Montblanc walled garden, but at CFD we have to discuss the categorisation of the articles as they currently exist. If the articles shouldn't exist they should go to AFD and any empty category left behind can be speedy deleted. --kingboyk (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That process has begun. I'll amend my comment above to make explicit my implied rationale. --Lquilter (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any AFD survivors into Category:Pens, or we'll have "limited editions" categories for furry toys and die cast cars, and lots of other things. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2008 (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:CASE Tools

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 discussion was Rename to Category:Computer-aided software engineering tools, per amended proposal. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CASE Tools to Category:CASE tools elmindreda (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as the abbreviation/acronym should be expanded. Otto4711 (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Computer-aided software engineering tools to match the main article, expand the acronym and fix the capitalization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Otto. --Rtphokie (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (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:Pretenders to the throne of the principality of Schaumburg-Lippe

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 discussion was rename all. Note, these appear to have been speedy renamed by the time this one closed, in any case. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the throne of the principality of Schaumburg-Lippe to Category:Pretenders to the throne of Schaumburg-Lippe Also:
- Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of Württemberg to Category:Pretenders to the throne of Württemberg
- Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies to Category:Pretenders to the throne of the Two Sicilies

I had initially redirected these categories to their new locations but was advised that this was the incorrect process. The names violate the naming conventions for country names in categories (and are also inconsistent with other categories at Category:Pretenders). Charles 06:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - two of the three rename from categories are empty and should just be deleted. The third is not eligible for speedy rename as the suggested rename already exists. That makes it a merge proposal, not a speedy rename. Otto4711 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are empty because editor began the rename manually by emptying the category and making a new one. The merge should be performed b/c the editor realized his/her mistake and made an effort to go about it the right way even after they started to do it incorrectly. Had it been done properly from the start, all would have been eligible for speedy renames. Snocrates 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but I would prefer "Pretenders to the principality" and "Pretenders to the kingdom" using the latter noun in its less common sense of kingship. The present names are certainly too clumsy. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom although somewhat grandiose - are we sure that these places have literal thrones? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2008 (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 First Cathedral

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 discussion was delete, a fait accompli, as it were- cat was emptied by its creator. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Of all the items in this category, only the article on the church itself and the pastor have anything to do with the subject of the category (which would make it too short, and it's unlikely to grow). Every other article in it falls under either "Non-defining or trivial characteristic" or "Trivial intersection" at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. There doesn't appear to be any way to improve the category. Noroton (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's rationale: As the Wikipedian expert on The First Cathedral and its associates I would like to say that all of the articles listed with the category (names of places, people, programs and churches) have a stong and vibrant connection to the First Cathedral. The First Cathedral's Category is sure to grow seeing that it is planning to expand into over 83 Countries worldwide. Respectfully submitted,Dc 160 (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Before making the nomination, I went through each article looking for mentions of The First Cathedral. I found one mention that didn't seem appropriate in one article, and I found appropriate mentions in the article on the church itself and the one on the pastor. Other than that, I saw no mentions at all and have no reason to believe that there is any connection other than something trivial, as described at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. It might be good for the church to have what little extra publicity the category links provide, but I see no evidence it's good for Wikipedia. If there is evidence of nontrivial links to these subjects, please provide it. Noroton (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dc 160 has asked me to define what I mean by "trivial". What I mean is explained at the two sections of Wikipedia:Overcategorization that I mention in my nominating rationale. The church doesn't appear to be important enough in connection with the other articles in the category. A nontrivial (and strong) connection between the church and the subjects of the other articles in the category would justify a category. It should be something much more important than "so-and-so spoke at the church" or "... sang at the church", for instance. By the way, I appreciate the work Dc 160 has done and I'm sure Dc160 is acting in good faith, but the category is simply inappropriate, and if we treated other churches and similar entities the same way, we'd have a gazillion categories. Noroton (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mostly "performer by performance" or other forms of OCAT. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a review of the articles in the category reveals only the most tenuous of connections, where any is to be found at all. The subcat Category:Musical Artists who have performed at The First Cathedral is a prime example of 'performer by performance' overcategorization, too. On a separate note, Dc 160, it's obvious you care very much about this topic, but proclaiming yourself 'the Wikipedian expert' on it is. . .distasteful. Maralia (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly performer by performance and people in a subject category. Too broad and not sufficiently defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's recantation: Apparently fighting to preserve this category is a lost cause. I'll save you guys the trouble an do it myself. Congrats to Maralia,Johnbod,Noroton,Carlossuarez46 Who have successfully protected Wikipedia from good- natured categories, while simultaneously destroying any chance of me contributing to Wikipedia again. Congrats! Isolated, Humiliated and Destroyed,Dc 160 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

As of January 9th 2007 at 7:57 EST The Categories Category: The First Cathedral and Category:Musical Artists who have performed at The First Cathedral have been abandoned

Mission Accomplished.

Delete per nom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2008 (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.

National Historic Landmarks

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 discussion was already renamed. Kbdank71 14:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. A change in name and proposes to use U.S. in a category name which is clearly not a speedy rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian was right to question the category names including U.S. in their names. Suggest dropping those and also the Washington, D.C. and/or District of Columbia categories from the speedy request, so the speedy request covers just the 50 states. See more discussion added further below. doncram (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are 1600+ articles already, growing towards 2,400 existing National Historic Landmarks, per discussion in WP:NRHP we want to create one category for each state, to use instead of one gigantic Category:National Historic Landmarks of the United States. I am new to this process, hopefully the following list is what is needed. There are 53 or so entries following this paragraph, which for formatting reasons may or may not be showing. Originally posted by Doncram

Per naming conventions. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Note some of these categories may not exist yet. Katr67 (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started renaming some of these NHL categories, but I won't actually be able to finish them tonight. If anyone else wants to jump into these, feel free. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 06:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if these are renamed, then the following changes need to be made:
I suppose there are better suggestions, but as proposed there are issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the ones listed with "U.S." in the title don't actually exist and were listed by a user inexperienced with category rename procedures. I simply reposted what he had listed, adding the names of the categories to be moved from. Can't we move this back to speedy? The change is really only "of" to "in". I'll make sure WP:NRHP knows what the category names should be before they add anything to them. Katr67 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, i was the one who listed U.S. in the titles, per the titles of the last listed state-list-type articles at the bottom of List of National Historic Landmarks by state. There has not been any discussion in WP:NRHP of those titles for use in state-list-type articles, and those articles are stubs I started that are not developed. These are unstable names. I suggest they be dropped from the request, and dealt with some time later after someone has developed those state-list-type articles. doncram (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the one about U.S. Foreign states is an awkward category name to describe the one site that is in the country of Morocco. It is the only National Historic Landmark, and I think it is the only U.S. NRHP, that is located in a different country, not an associated state or whatever. Probably it doesn't need a category, there would be just 1 item in it i think. Some kind of "Other" or "Not in a U.S. State" or "Not in 50 states or D.C." or some such phrase needs to be coined to hold it and the associated state ones.doncram (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other option is to just leave it as an article in the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the one in Morocco could just stay in the parent category -- it doesn't make a lot of sense to create a category for just one article. Actually, come to think of it, we could hold off for the moment on creating a category for those in List of National Historic Landmarks in U.S. commonwealths and territories until we come up with more of a standard. It isn't even a question of renaming them, since there are no categories for NHLs outside the 50 states and Washington, DC. (That makes the renaming debate easier.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the name "in Washington, D.C.", rather than "in the District of Columbia" has not been discussed in WP:NRHP. I don't care about this strongly, but it seems to me that the District of Columbia should be spelled out, with or without the word Washington, like the big category name spelled out National Historic Landmarks of the United States, without abbreviating. FYI, there is an existing state-list-type article List of National Historic Landmarks in the District of Columbia. Perhaps the resolution would be to have 50 state categories and one Other, although some Washingtonians(?) or Columbians(?) may object. Leave it until discussed in WP:NRHP. doncram (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington D.C. is the standard for categories and not District of Columbia, see Category:Washington, D.C.. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the list of 50 states above is no longer all 50 states. My original request was cut, edited and pasted, from where i posted it, so I don't know if it was my error or not, but I see the list omits Alabama and Alaska now, and maybe others. Or were those speedily processed already? doncram (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama, Alaska, and California have been speedily "processed" already. (Does it count as processing if something is done improperly out of process?) I think I also did Minnesota, Utah, Rhode Island, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arizona, but if I remember correctly, those categories may have been empty to start out with. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged all these with cfr-speedy. Do we need a bot to change the tag? Katr67 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, I screwed up. Maybe next time, I should get a clue about how this works. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it. Once approved here, we have bots to do the moving. We all have learned from past mistakes and some of us still make them. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Any need for a second? "in" is much better for physical features and structures and sites. --Lquilter (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Ooh, yes, rename. I didn't even understand this place was like a RfD discussion where people vote. Hopefully i can vote while being involved. Not that there is any controversy here. It's a basic housekeeping thing. The "of" names should not have been allowed, were a mistake. Obviously Nationally designated historic places are "of" the nation, they are not "of" the state, that would be implying the state is a nation. They are nationally designated places that happen to be "in" one or more states, can be listed in categories in the state or states they are in. doncram (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom those categories that exist. Do nothing with the categories that do not yet exist. They can hardly be renamaed! Hmains (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the remaining 11 states back in the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy as they are uncontroversial and contain enough articles to make use of the bot to recatagorise them.--Appraiser (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2008 (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.