Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 11

< March 10	March 12 >

March 11

Category:Psychological conditions

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: merge the only category to Category:Psychology. Empty (and single article) categories are indeed a reason to delete. Kbdank71 14:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category currently is empty. There is no definition for it as Psychological conditions is too vague to be meaningful. Mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The very first link from google search on term. Psychological condition (psychology) a mental condition in which the qualities of a state are relatively constant even though the state itself may be dynamic. Empty cats are no reason to delete, but it currently has one. Is there a carefully considered rationale for this deletion? cygnis insignis 08:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not care whether the category exists or not. It just does not have anything to do with Psychology. But sometimes people need a grab bag catetory to stick things in and it will do for that. Category:Emotion is one of those grab bag categories also. We in Psychology gave up on getting it deleted because there are too many OR, fringe, or pop psych theories etc. that can be stuck there. As far as it turning up on Google, often I write an article and the very next day it is first on Google. That is just the way Google works. The fact that an empty meaningless Wikipedia category still turns up first on Google has to tell you something! Mattisse (Talk) 02:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't tell me anything: I googled the term, not the category. The nominator seems to have a strong opinion on this, but a search contradicts the 'meaningless' claim. The user has not given the any other reason to delete this category; miscategorisation of articles is not one, any category can be misapplied. Depopulating categories prior to these discussions does not assist in determining the value to the encyclopedia, it does give interested contributors an alert to 'Category for Deletion'. If this has been discussed at a wikiproject, or can be shown to contradict a specific policy, the links would be helpful to this discussion. cygnis insignis 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the category was created to gather a range of articles related to psychology, but not necessary pathological, from memory including a number of paraphilias, and a number then haphazardly categorised. User:Mattisse has recently emptied the category, I would expect to more clearly defined categories. Paul foord (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Afrikaans South Africans

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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Afrikaans South Africans to Category:Afrikaans-speaking South Africans

Nominator's rationale: 'Afrikaans-speaking' is the correct adjective form Mayumashu (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm very dubious about this. By precedent we don't normally categorize by language spoken. It is a sub-cat of the national/ethnic tree, not anything to do with language; plenty of black people speak Afrikaans, but I don't think this category is meant for them. Why on earth does Casper de Vries not go into the main Category:Afrikaners? Why don't those "of Huguenot descent", a classic Afrikaner origin. Keep or Down-merge to Category:Afrikaners, deleting any who really don't belong there. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bad precedent, to categorize people by languages spoken. How well must it be spoken? Mother tongue? Or is this a race/ethnicity category in disguise, in which is should surely go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is not "in disguise" at all, it is a sub of Category:South African people by ethnic or national origin, and should be down-merged to its sub Category:Afrikaners, of/to which the Huguenots should either be a sub, or merged, as I think the Dutch and French Afrikaner elements are now totally mixed up after 300 years. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's of no use then, if it's just a race/ethnicity cat - after 300 years of mixing even the most emphatic supporters of categorization by race/ethnicity would have a hard time swallowing the relevance of this (but note: mixing with native blood seems to quickly exclude one from this category) WikiApartheid. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional voodoo practitioners

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Found doing February cleanup. Appears to have been left out of a group nomination on Feb 24 that resulted in a Delete of the other fictional religion categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not defining, OR, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to be consistent with other fictional religious adherents / practitioners. --Lquilter (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional Protestants

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Appears to have been left out of a group nomination on Feb 24 that resulted in a Delete of the other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to be consistent with other fictional religious adherents / practitioners. --Lquilter (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Films about dinosaurs

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films about dinosaurs to Category:Films featuring dinosaurs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found doing February cleanup. Appears to not have been listed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does the mere featuring of a dinosaur make the films have much in common? No. Barney and Jurassic Park have little if anything in common. And films about dinosaurs suffers the same ills as all films about categories: how much about the subject must it be and what RS tells us that it's at least that amount. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. The topic is not defining for many films. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bosnian folk music

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bosnian folk music to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina folk music

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Leftover from February. Seems to match a group rename that was completed and this item was not included with the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match other B&H categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Solomon Islander society

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Solomon Islander society to Category:Solomon Islands society

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found cleaning up from February. Seems to match a group nomination that was renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match other SI categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Registered Historic Places in Lexington

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Registered Historic Places in Lexington to Category:Registered Historic Places in Lexington, Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are several Lexingtons; the category should be specific to allow for future growth. Appraiser (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Far and away the largest, and most notable. Even if every possible Wikipedia article about a Lexington were written, Kentucky's would have 95% of them.--Bedford 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Given Lexington, Massachusetts, size isn't a factor - both Lexingtons are very notable, but for different reasons. Furthermore, policy and guidelines seem to dictate "city, state" for article and category titles. MSJapan (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about NRHPs. Lex Mass has only 12 on the National Register; Lex KY has over one hundred. Not allowing just Lexington means there is a reason for people not to bother writing a bunch of Lex KY articles.--Bedford 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this deter anyone from writing articles?--Appraiser (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and per consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Clearly a city only category. The issue of size is a distraction and should not affect the outcome based on previous discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Law enforcers who committed suicide

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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, specifically a trivia-type category. Someone who is notable for being "X" doesn't really have great article enhancement from also being in a "died by Y"-type category. As per my other nom, I don't see this as a cat that will fill out at all. MSJapan (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and a bad precedent of X's who did Y, Category:Labor peers who climbed Mount Everest, Category:Show dogs who failed out of Harvard, Category:Vice presidents who shot people, and other nonsense... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The structure is there to break up Category:Suicides somehow, as it would be colossal otherwise. However, as I've said before, I'm open to another method of subcategorizing these articles.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By country, perhaps, not by job.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems less connective to me than by career. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Please, note that this question was already discussed and the decision already was keep (sadly, the link from discussion page is broken). I can remind that the basic ideas behind this categorization are: 1) subdivision of overpopulated Category:Suicides, 2) make it useful for end-users (such as psychologists and other possible researchers who research suicide phenomena) to make it easy to find connection between suicide causes and profession. "Law enforcers who committed suicide" is indeed a *good* example of useful category for this purpose: it's well-known that law enforcement is a hard job that makes a huge psychological impact on a person and, given that the law enforcers usually have easy access to weapons, suicide cases among law enforcers are not unusual. However, I agree that other subdivisions are possible and in fact, they exist (we have also Category:Suicides by method). If anyone cares for Category:Suicides by country — they're welcome to undertake such project.--GreyCat (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Law enforcement snipers

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, and only one article in the cat, with low probability of additions (as a matter of fact, the only reason the one article is in there is because the sniper was accused of manslaughter at Waco). I think The main snipers category should suffice in conjunction with the law enforcement officers cat. MSJapan (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Category:Snipers already has sub-categorizations for "Criminal snipers" and "Military snipers", and law enforcement really doesn't fit into either category. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one guy can be categorized under Category:Snipers, we don't need a subcat for 1, too OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with option to recreate if more articles that would obviously fit are actually written. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional androids with an emotion chip

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: per Wikipedia:Overcategorization, this is a non-defining or trivial characteristic, and likely too small with limited potential for growth. HokieRNB (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, lol that is fun. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What about non-fictional androids with an emotional chip?--Appraiser (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do androids dream of emotional sheep? Cgingold (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a Star Trek category masquerading as a more general category. And "Emotion" is the name of a real chip. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, not useful for navigation, pure trekkiecruft. szyslak 06:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would support it if it had a second article. As it is, there is only one which fits the description. Dimadick (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rush

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a band; blatant WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The general consensus on eponymous musician categories is that they are not needed if the extent of their contents are member, album and song subcats and the band article and discography. Here we have additional subcats for videos and tours along with additional articles. Personally I'm fine with extending the consensus so that neither tour nor video subcats are sufficient to warrant the category, but there do not appear to be appropriate alternate categories for the articles History of Rush and Rush equipment so the category needs to be retained to house them. If suitable alternate categories can be located before the close of the CFD, I'm willing to change my opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Otto said.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with most of what Otto4711 said as well. Along with that, articles "Anatomy of a Drum Solo" and "Rush instrumentals" should probably be moved from [[Category:Rush albums]] and [[Category:Rush songs]] to [[Category:Rush]] too. - WikHead (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Otto4711. RedWolf (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to aid navigation between related sub-categories. Possibly rename to Category:Rush (band) to match parent article. — CharlotteWebb 17:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Signers of the United States Constitution

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: formal English preferable; consistency with cat pages of same nature Mayumashu (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose informal English preferable, the current formulation is by far the more used in the US, e.g. "Signers"+"Declaration of Independence" is 488K ghits vs. "Signatories"+"Declaration of Independence" only 86k ghits. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Signers really is the common way this is expressed in the US, in all settings (informal use, media, etc.) Quale (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Signers has always been used in the US. WP should not be culture tampering. And for the sake of what? Not a credible nomination Hmains (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Although the term "signatories" may be more formal, "Signers" is by far more common. --TommyBoy (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Per above - should follow more common usage in the United States. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Muscle Shoals Music

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overly broad category; seems to be indiscriminate in what it contains -- songs recorded in Muscle Shoals, bands who recorded there, etc. etc. I don't see much of a connection between, say Bob Seger and Muscle Shoals music, nor between Skynyrd and it, nor between "Touch Me When We're Dancing". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Comments: Keep During the 1970's Muscle Shoals was considered the "Hit Recording Capital of the World." It is home to Sam Phillips who discovered Elvis, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis, and many other greats at his studios in Memphis. It is home to the famous Muscle Shoals Sound and Fame Recording Studios, both playing a significant role in the evolution of the sound of the 70's that intertwined both soul and rock to form a unique sound. As such Muscle Shoals music is considered its own genre and carries much significance in the evolution of modern rock music. Many of the artists who had their beginnings there would strongly argue it carries very high significance and remains significant in the evolution of American music. Just the list of artists who have recorded there shows the importance of this central figure in the music world. For more information on Skynyrd check "Sweet Home Alabama" and the reference to the Muscle Shoals Swampers. The Swampers were the back-up musicians that included David Hood, some of the best muscians in the world. It is one reason artists chose Muscle Shoals. The common root is the studios, the studio operators, the back-up musciains, and the discoveries that make Muscle Shoals Music unique. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 14:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about subcategorizing it? Something like Category:Muscle Shoals musicians, Category:Songs recorded in Muscle Shoals, that kind of deal. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great idea. I will try to work on that some this weekend or maybe after it is decided to keep or delete. It would certainly help. Thanks!!! Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's original comments. The fact that songs were recorded in a particular locale or that musicians recorded in a particular place in non-defining. Akin to something like Category:Los Angeles Music for songs recorded or bands who laid down tracks in LA or Category:Brussels Music for bands who happened to record in Belgium. Otto4711 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus

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: reverse merge. the wub "?!" 11:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus to Category:Depictions of Jesus

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate. This category is larger, but category:Depictions of Jesus matches the article Depiction of Jesus more closely, and takes the same form as the category for the Virgin Mary. It is also shorter. But whatever name is preferred, there need only be one category. Luwilt (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree only one cat is needed. I personally think "Artistic portrayals of Jesus" is clearer, and the main article is about "the depiction" as a general subject, whereas the category is supposed to cover individual depictions, so I'm not sure consistency is absolutely necessary. There is a case for renaming the article & the Jesus category to "Jesus in art" as being clearer, and as the category in fact contain individual works, types of works & so on. The Mary category is actually rather different, with many more cult types & so on, and has no main article as such. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge, the first category is by far the older (the second is a week old), and "depictions of Jesus" connotes things like the Turin Shroud, Crucifixes, and such, where "Artistic" is in the eye of the beholder - is an actor's potrayal of Jesus in a film appropriate for the category? If the film has Jesus show up in a (ahem) less than pious depiction, still? Any way, given the choice between the two and not being able to come up with anything more clever, I prefer the former to the latter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just in case anyone notices that the only article in "Depictions" was written & added by me, I did it by mistake, & didn't create the cat. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not aimed at you. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry; I didn't think it was! Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per above comments. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

2006/07 football league seasons

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These categories each only contain one article, and show no signs of having any more added to them in the foreseeable future. – Pee Jay 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if there become a slew of new articles appropriately so categorized. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, articles should be categorized by La Liga seasons etc. Punkmorten (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:La Liga statistics

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:La Liga statistics to Category:La Liga seasons

Nominator's rationale: The category contains individual articles about each season of La Liga and only one article that could be considered statistical. This move would bring this category in line with Category:Segunda División seasons. – Pee Jay 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Secretaries of Justice

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Secretaries of Justice to Category:Secretaries of Justice of the Philippines

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a Philippines category, but many countries have an office with a similar name, so it is wide open to confusion and inadvertent misuse. Luwilt (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Texas-San Antonio Roadrunners men's basketball coaches

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Texas-San Antonio Roadrunners men's basketball coaches to Category:UTSA Roadrunners men's basketball coaches

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The basketball team is known as the UTSA Roadrunners. See Category:UTSA Roadrunners athletics, Category:UTSA Roadrunners basketball. (Also, for precedent see Category:UTEP Miners basketball coaches rather than Category:Texas-El Paso Miners basketball coaches. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. They're better known by the acronym.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Social history of Nepal

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

The result of the discussion was: listify per Johnbod. the wub "?!" 11:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC). Actually it turns out this is already better covered in Demographics of Nepal, so there is no need for another list. the wub "?!" 11:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: An article or list masquerading as a category.Russ (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify by just renaming List of social and ethnic groups of Nepal or similar. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While listification per Johnbod would normally make sense, without sourcing we have no way of knowing whether these these castes exist, are grouped in this way, or whether this is (hopefully isn't) an attack page. I don't know enough on this subject to know that it has merit, and unless someone who does can find sourcing, deletion is the best course. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well a large number of them are blue links, though many are not; I can confirm many are correct. I see no reason why we should not WP:AGF. Since the list is really just a collection of links, with no statements made, I don't think lack of sourcing is a reason to just remove the material here. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Alleged brutality by the New York City Police Department

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Alleged police brutality in the United States. This may not be the best name to use, but there does not appear to be a better one based upon the discussion. There is definite consensus that this category should not stay as is. Based upon the argument that "more Wikipedia articles about alleged brutality by the NYPD have been written than articles about alleged brutality by any other police force", it seems to be a better idea to go with a rename instead of merge, at least for the now. Kbdank71 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Alleged brutality by the New York City Police Department to Category:Alleged police brutality

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to carry the misleading implication that the New York City Police Department has a much more serious brutality problem than other departments, so serious it needs its own category. Regardless, I don't see a need to subcategorize police brutality-related articles by department. Category:Alleged police brutality is not especially large, and I don't see how such a scheme helps with navigation szyslak 10:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Alleged police brutality has 31 pages (plus 4 or 5 in other subcats) and Category:Alleged brutality by the New York City Police Department has 17; so NYCPD does seem to be a world leader in alleged police brutality, by some distance. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is faulty logic. All this tells us is that more Wikipedia articles about alleged brutality by the NYPD have been written than articles about alleged brutality by any other police force. This could be the result of one editor who happens to like writing articles about NY.

Oppose Merge - This is simply an ordinary and perfectly valid sub-cat which improves the orderly navigation of the parent cat (which would have nearly 50 articles if merged). I certainly agree that there are many other police depts. with records of brutality, most of which aren't as well documented in Wiki articles as they ought to be. Cgingold (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - article count doesn't factor in to the size of a category (we have plenty at 200+), and 17 articles (not all of which are cases) covering 124 years doesn't seem to me to indicate a problem that needs its own cat. We should be dealing in fact without making judgments implied in category titles. MSJapan (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, but perhaps rename so that it's simply "United States" not "New York City" specifically, and move other articles into the new geographic subcat as well. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion strikes me as a very good idea. Cgingold (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do something. The category seems to be overly broad. Anyone who has an article and has alleged brutality by this department, or by anyone if merged, seems to be includeable. I think a better tack might be to group these by people with allegations, notable incidents and maybe investigations of allegations. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; allegations categories are generall crap, who makes the allegation, does it need to be in good faith, and where does Tawana Brawley go? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Speaker for the Dead [User:Sherurcij] suggestion. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the broader Category:Alleged police brutality, neither category is large enough to merit a sub-cat. Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Formalizing Sherurcij's suggestion as an) alternate proposal: Rename to Category:Alleged police brutality in the United States.

This is analagous to the current CFD for Category:Transgender and transsexual actors from the United States, where I made the point that it's "useful to readers not only because it identifies who's American, but also and equally because it identifies who isn't American." Cgingold (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carlossuarez46. If there is not sufficient. support for the delete, then merge into Category:Alleged police brutality. Given the questions raised here, it may be worth discussing the deletion of Category:Alleged police brutality as another nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Estland

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People from the Governorate of Estonia. the wub "?!" 11:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Estland to Category:People from Estonia

Nominator's rationale: People from Estonia. This particular category ought to be moved for reasons of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), "Estland" is the German/Danish term for "Estonia". Prior to 1920, "Esthonia" was the predominant English term for that region, however it is now an English archaism like Servia is archaic English for Serbia. Martintg (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But this cat page lists people of the Imperial Russian Governorate of Estonia and not the modern state. The suggested renaming would be too confusing. Mayumashu (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-WW1 english language references, including the 1911 edition of Britanica[1], refer to the Imperial Russian Governorate of Estonia in the archaic form "Esthonia". In 1917 the Russian Provisional Government expanded the Governorate of Estonia (today northern Estonia) to absorb the northern part of Governorate of Livonia, hence that was how the whole territory of modern Estonia got its name. A google book search reveals:

estonia "Russian empire" 696 hits Google books [2]
estland "Russian empire" 187 hits Google books [3]
livonia "Russian empire" 685 hits Google books [4]
livland "Russian empire" 192 hits Google books [5]
courland "Russian empire" 655 hits Google books [6]
kurland "Russian empire" 287 hits Google books [7]
germany "Russian empire" 1251 hits Goggle books [8]
deutschland "Russian empire" 494 hits Google books [9]

In google scholar:

"Russian empire" + estland 337 hits in Google scholar [10]
"Russian empire" + estonia 3580 hits in Google scholar [11]

Clearly estonia/livonia/courland/germany is more common in english usage than the germanic estland/livland/kurland/deutschland, if you dig further you will find the german form is usually associated with some German language article or book. We don't have a category Category:People from Deutschland in english wikipedia to avoid confusion with people born in the modern German state. Martintg (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative renaming proposed Category:People from the Governorate of Estonia Mayumashu (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Martintg (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Olessi (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mayumashu, or second choice merge with Category:Estonian people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Buildings and structures in Stirling

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. the wub "?!" 11:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Stirling to Category:Buildings and structures in Stirling, Alberta

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Stirling, Alberta and parent Category:Stirling, Alberta. Stirling is about the city in Scotland, which is nearly 50 times the size of Stirling, Alberta. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mayumashu (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Kmsiever (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom . Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator): Creator has emptied the old category and replaced it with a new one of the proposed name. In light of this, I suppose this nomination could be closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Expatriate football players to Category:Expatriate footballers

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: majority of category pages use the more concise term "footballer" in their naming Mayumashu (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, also to match Category:Expatriate footballers, but not, sadly, the verbose Category:Football (soccer) players. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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