Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 4

< December 3	December 5 >

December 4

Category:Eclipse Foundation

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of entities by things of which they're members. In addition to the head article, Eclipse Foundation, category contains about a dozen articles and one subcategory, all of which are apparently there per the category description: The companies in this category are members of the foundation. Lquilter (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I created doing house keeping, I've got no opinion one or the other. Gnan garra 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Membership of this foundation is not a defining characteristic of these companies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:World Idol

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - although a recent test CFD for reality show participants closed as keep, reservations were expressed about such categories for shows whose participants are already famous. This category is an odd duck as everyone in it was famous/notable prior to the show, but they were famous for having won another show in the same franchise. Since this was a one-off show and since there's already a list in the article on the show, this feels like overcategorization. If kept it should be renamed to Category:World Idol participants. Otto4711 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as form of performer by performance, like would be the case for celebrity people in various other game/reality shows, dancing with the stars, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:BattleMechs

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 speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article, not likely to be expanded due to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Too narrow to be useful. Upmerge into parent categories. Pagra shtak 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though a frequent BattleTech contributor, I do agree that this category is unnecessary. I've corrected the categorization of its single article (BattleMech), moving it up into the parent category. Huwmanbeing ★ 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cultural NGOs

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Cultural NGOs to Category:Cultural organizations

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Merge largely redundant Category:Cultural NGOs into preexisting Category:Cultural Institutions; propose renaming the combined category to Category:Cultural organizations or maybe "Culture organizations" or anybody have other better ideas? Lquilter 20:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Lquilter. Sting_au Talk 04:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Religion NGOs

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Religion NGOs to Category:Religion organizations

Propose renaming Category:Religious organizations to Category:Religion organizations

Nominator's rationale: Combine; rename. Definitely combine Category:Religion NGOs and Category:Religious organizations; also I propose (for discussion) renaming from "religious" to "religion" to encompass, for example, academic groups that are not themselves religious but are about religion. I'm not convinced this is the right thing to do -- for instance, "medical" is adjectival. But because "religious" carries some additional meaning it seems like it might be better to rename to be more, ah, ecumenical. Lquilter 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Sting_au Talk 04:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Medical organizations

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge all. the wub "?!" 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Medical organizations to Category:Medical and health organizations

Propose renaming Category:Health organizations to Category:Medical and health organizations

Propose renaming Category:Medical and health NGOs to Category:Medical and health organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose consolidating 3 related categories into one supercategory. Then breaking down and consolidating the individual subcategories by research, consumer advocacy, educational, etc. "Health" is broader than "medical" but in a number of instances organizations and categories cover both, already, and it just seems like it will be easier to put the two together and then go for functional/membership subcategories within the combined category. Lquilter 20:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional clarification - This is just to gather together the "supercategory" based on subject. Within this supercategory of subject, we will still need to have appropriate subcategories for the kinds of action, subject, members -- e.g., consumer-related, advocacy, professional associations, research organizations, and so on. --Lquilter (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Sting_au Talk 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Human Rights NGOs

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Human Rights NGOs to Category:Human rights organizations Merge, These categories are all redundant of preexisting categories and do not appear to have any significant name variations or differences in scope. Lquilter 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Sting_au Talk 04:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Peace NGOs and Education NGOs

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Peace NGOs to Category:Peace organizations

Suggest merging Category:Education NGOs to Category:Educational organizations

Nominator's rationale: Merge, These categories are all redundant of preexisting categories and do not appear to have any significant name variations or differences in scope. Lquilter 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Sting_au Talk 04:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Economic development NGOs

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Economic development NGOs to Category:Development organizations

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Another in the new NGOs category tree. Based on other recent CFDs looking at development organizations it seems like Category:Development organizations is the better generic category with banks to be handled separately. Lquilter 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Sting_au Talk 04:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Crisis and disaster NGOs

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Crisis and disaster NGOs to Category:Emergency organisations, and rename Category:Emergency organisations, but no consensus to what. To keep the merge from stalling, I'm going ahead with the merge, and if someone wants to relist Category:Emergency organisations once that's complete, feel free. . Kbdank71 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Crisis and disaster NGOs to Category:Emergency organisations

Suggest renaming Category:Emergency organisations to ???

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Merge the newly created Crisis and disaster NGOs into the longstanding Emergency organisations. Also opening the floor for renaming the combined category: "Emergency" is not necessarily the best name. Lquilter 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom & Rename to Category:Emergency response organisations or Category:Emergency preparedness and response organisations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & *Rename to first suggestion Category:Emergency response organisations. Sting_au Talk 04:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on? Doesn't organizations have a "z" in it? Do we use the American spelling? Sting_au Talk 04:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. Whoever created it first did it with an "s"; it's my policy to not change for that reason. If I'm starting a new tree from scratch I use "z" but if I'm filling in an existing "s" tree I use that. --Lquilter (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Rename. I believe that I created it. A good new name would be Category:Emergency management organisations. The original intention was to create a cat for the orgs under Category:Emergency management, which includes organisations active in more than just Response. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 08:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I like "emergency management"; it seems to include the humanitarian relief work & the government managerial infrastructure type work. --Lquilter (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - or what about "emergency management and relief organizations"? --Lquilter (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry - new suggestion, as I think disaster should be in the mix - emergency by itself just sounds like local ambulance organisations, so Category:Emergency and disaster organisations. I think disasters is more the "trade" term. Include 2management" by all means, but then it's getting rather long. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like "Category:Emergency and disaster organisations" the best of all the suggestions thus far. --Lquilter (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename to Category:Emergency and disaster management organisations. I think it's important that we keep the word "management" in the title, to serve as a clear reference to the topic of emergency management. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Re: Disaster vs. Emergency. We had that discussion in the Disaster management Wikiproject. We agreed on using Emergency management as the generic term. In general, Disaster management is the academic term, whereas Emergency management is more frequently used in the field. There is also a distinction between North America and Europe; with Disaster management being more prevalent in Europe. Bottom line, Emergency management organisations covers all the types of organisations and activities discussed above. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 04:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Civil and political NGOs

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Civil and political NGOs to Category:Civic and political organizations

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Another in the recently created NGOs tree; largely redundant of the much older & more established Category:Civic and political organizations. That category has its own problems but it'll take a bit longer to sort them out. However, if we want to consider those issues, see also Category:Political organizations. -- Lquilter 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Sting_au Talk 04:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Masai mythology

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Masai mythology to Category:Maasai mythology

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match spelling of the parent category Category:Maasai and the article Maasai mythology. Tim! 18:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Leicester Station

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorising railway lines by the stations through which they run is not just a recipe for category clutter, it's also a case of categorising the general by the specific, which is a back-to-front use of categories. There might be a case for categorising stations by the lines on which they are located, but that's the reverse of this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think there are many examples odf the reverse (US in particular). Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; backasswards is what we'd call that down here :) Maralia (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Video games with female protagonists

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Any guesstimates as to what proportion of games have female protagonists? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To BHG: I don't know the numbers, but I think categorizing by protagonist is a bad idea. I think this sort of thing is much better handled with lists. --Lquilter 17:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply In general, I agree. OTOH, if there were female protagonists in only a tiny proportion of such games, then that might be grounds for considering it as a category, which is why I asked about numbers. (The other plausible reason might be if such games were a culturally distinct phenomenon, which doesn't seem to be the case). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining, trivial intersection, etc. Maralia (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This cat reminds me of this list... --Koveras ^☭ 10:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There's a reason for that. People at the list felt it would make a better category. I do still consider this a worthwhile collection of information, but not necessarily in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfukenobi (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? Is there another side to this fence? -- Swerdnaneb 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seemed like a good idea at the time. :) Kungfukenobi (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I'm trying to take the blame here... not the credit...) I saw the list and thought that it would be better suited to a category because you don't really need any text in the list article other than a list of the games. I didn't know that there were all these cool criteria and precedents for categories. Pretty cool. Anyway... I just wanted to explain the mindset behind the creation of the category. I hope this helps somehow. -- Swerdnaneb 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lake George

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Warren County, New York. the wub "?!" 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Warren County, New York, or at least Rename to Category:Lake George, New York. Note that both Lake George and Lake George, New York are disambiguation pages -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REname/merge per nom 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Warren County, New York. Categorising by nearby-lake is a recipe for clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Metafictional media

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Metafictional media to Category:Fictional media

Nominator's rationale: Merge - category is a misnomer as it is not capturing metafictional media, just plain old fictional. Otto4711 14:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. An empty sub-cat to delete also. Johnbod 14:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 14:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't many of the contents fictional fiction? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bad Religion tours

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one article remaining after others were speedy-ed and prod-ed. (Alternatively, repurpose for articles about comeback tours by disgraced televangelists.) Cgingold 13:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too few perspectives of populating Travtim^(Talk) 14:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although I was very tempted to be mischievious and support the delightful suggestion to repurpose it as a category of articles about comeback tours by disgraced televangelists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Women by occupation

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Women architects to Category:Female architects
Rename Category:Women artists to Category:Female artists
Rename Category:Women comedians to Category:Female comedians
Rename Category:Women comics artists to Category:Female comics artists
Rename Category:Women comics writers to Category:Female comics writers
Rename Category:Women composers to Category:Female composers
Rename Category:Women engineers to Category:Female engineers
Rename Category:Women judges to Category:Female judges
Rename Category:Women scientists to Category:Female scientists
Rename Category:Women sheriffs to Category:Female sheriffs
Rename Category:Women social scientists to Category:Female social scientists
Rename Category:Women writers to Category:Female writers

Nominator's rationale: Women is being used incorrectly as an adjective. While I understand that 'women writers' etc could be seen as a compound noun, it simply doesn't sound right, in the way that 'town house', 'Girl Scout troop', 'city council member' or 'cellar door' (to use the examples from compound noun), and the phrase 'man writer' etc would never be used in preference of 'male writer'.

I accept that the compound noun analysis is at least possible, but as a many users have conceded that female x is ‘’more’’ correct that women x, it should be preferred.

To fill in the gaps, there was a previous discussion on this exact point here, which resulted in no consensus. I recently attempted to make the change to Category: Women writers without following the proper process; an error on my part. There are discussions on reversion of my earlier edits here and here. It is also relevant to consider that since that debate, Category:Women lawyers has become Category:Female lawyers, showing that there is some drive for what I'm proposing.

I understand that the current de facto policy is to use whatever term is preferred by the group as a whole. But as User:Bencherlite pointed out, this is something that needs to be cleared up, and at the moment is taken really as just an endorsement of the status quo. If my nomination is rejected, I’d like to see the policy behind it appearing on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). --Matthew Proctor 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the policy behind it - As Portia1780 points out, that policy is already in WP:NAMING. --Lquilter 16:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted on this elsewhere. Essentially I support leaving the "Women" categories as they stand. This form is common usage (as people have evidenced via such examples as Women writers courses in academic institutions) and they are standard in international library thesauri (or subject headings lists) such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings List (LCSH). There are also I believe social/feminist reasons for this terminologySterry2607 (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to the non-sexed parent category as overcategorization by sex, but since that will never happen, keep/reverse merge all as Women foos. Otto4711 13:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The non-sexed parent category", meaning that all these people should not be categorized by sex/gender at all? "gender occupation" is a subcat of the gender tree too you know as Wasserman has pointed out. At any rate, Otto4711, I am working on a series of articles about the unique history and occupational challenges and organizations and so on for women in various occupational categories; see Women in the workforce for links & what-not. --Lquilter 14:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While women have certainly faced issues of access and discrimination in the workplace (and still do) that doesn't mean that every occupation needs to be divided into sex-based categories. Otto4711 15:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the ones listed here are all occupational categories in which there are obvious articles. The comics artists / writers could be perhaps merged into Comics people or something but I'm not sure that's a good idea. Women sheriffs should probably be changed into "Women in law enforcement" to include female cops, female FBI, etc. ... I agree that not every far-down variant of an occupation needs gender categories, but the top parent categories certainly do, where there is a gender-based head article that can be written for them. That's perfectly in keeping with WP:CATGRS. --Lquilter 16:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CATGRS means that a category should not exist if an encyclopedic article can't be written. It doesn't mean that everything that can have a head article written should have a category. Otto4711 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure why there has to be consistency. The English language is not very consistent at this point in common usage and I see no reason why we shouldn't go with common usage. As for nominator's comment about it just sounding weird, well, compound nouns sound just fine to my ear, and frankly "women judges" sounds fine and normal to those of us who are "women lawyers", whereas "female judges" and "female lawyers" sounds a little stilted and formal and as if someone who's saying them isn't very used to the concept. Merge to whatever is the most common phrase based on Ghits; put a note on the category page; and have done with these pointless time-wasting debates, already. --Lquilter 14:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words - there's no reason to muck with these unless someone comes to us with a specific set of evidence demonstrating that they are named in contravention of ordinary English language usage. That hasn't been done here. --Lquilter 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge into most common usage, Reject standardization if standardization goes against accepted or widely used terminology, per the Naming Conventions:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

I'm thinking that the optimization here would be using the most widely accepted (and therefore expected) terminology. Agree with Lquilter. Portia1780 15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous CFDs: 2006/7/18 --Lquilter 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mass renaming - While consistency in naming is generally a good thing, in should not be imposed for its own sake. Yes, it's a bother, but any renaming of these categories should take place on a case-by-case basis. I also want to point out two things that haven't been remarked on thus far.

First, one of the major differences between the two formulations is that "women", being a noun, emphasizes the person -- while "female", if perceived as an adjective, emphasizes the occupation (if perceived as a noun, it strikes some editors as being somewhat dehumanizing.) So in general, it would probably be a good idea to lean in the direction of using "women" whenever possible.

However, there are some categories where that consideration may be outweighed by other factors. Case in point: Category:Female musicians. Unlike most occupations, many individuals have become notable musicians prior to reaching adulthood, so it seems to me that "female" is preferable for this particular category because it is the more inclusive term. On the other hand, Category:Women composers should not be changed, because notable juvenile composers are extremely rare. Cgingold (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "Female (X)'s." There's no reason not to standardize here. If people are notable for being both female and of a particular occupation, then we should reflect that. I think "women" handles that just fine (despite the stated concerns about age), but since no one can argue with "female" being accurate, let's switch to that. "Women" also strikes me as a lousy adjective (imagine "Men comics artists"), so let's use the word that is more clearly an adjective.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: I'd like to see all "delete" votes ignored for this discussion. Hear me out, please. This is not a mass nomination of categories by gender. There are quite a few that begin with "Female" or "Women in" or other formats. The question on deck is whether these categories should be standardized by adjectival form, which you can argue one way or another for. Let us take up the overcategorization issue some other time when we can consider all the categories that would be affected, or consider them individually for deletion. But not in this nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as OCAT by sex & occupation - do women musicians/composers/judges/engineers do anything notably different than their male counterparts? there seems to be no ability to write an article on women judging; women engineering; etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there are articles on Women in engineering and Women in the United States Judiciary. Your comment confuses "feminine engineering" with women in engineering (and feminine judiciary with "women in the judiciary"). Nobody is alleging that there is a female style of engineering; just that women engineers have a unique history, professional associations, etc. ... But that wasn't the proposal; the proposal was just to rename. So this doesn't help with that proposal. --Lquilter (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about Foos in occupation do not these support categories; no doubt a well written article about men in engineering or men in the judiciary could be written, so you'd jump up and support categories like that. Nope. The intersection of Foos & occupation supports a category when Foos do that occupation differently than non-Foos. Re-read CATGRS: it's because there is LGBT fiction that LGBT authors is ok as a category, not because we can write an article about LGBT authors. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, oppose renaming. The "delete" arguments should be considered individually for the different categories, against the tests set out in WP:CATGRS; lumping these v difft occupations together is a recipe for confused decisions. As to the renaming, there may be a case for renaming some categories, but per Lquilter, we need some evidence on general usage rather than simply making a blanket decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that there isn't always consistency in the English language, but there should be consistency in an encyclopedia; hence the WP:MOS and various naming conventions. While I originally felt that women writers etc was wrong, I've been convinced otherwise. But I still feel that female writers is better, and should be preferred.

Both are common use, to an extent. A google search will reveal that, with it varying as to which is the preferred form for any given occupation. I don't think that can really be a helpful method of deciding. I think the convention should instead be whatever seems more natural (and in that respect, I agree entirely with Portia1780's comment above), and I submit that that is female writers.

In response to Cgingold, I don't see that the phrase 'female firefighters' de-emphasises the person at all. The same way that 'women' refers to the subset of people who are female, 'firefighters' refers to the subset of people who fight fires. Both are clearly identifiable as human, so I don't really see the criticism.--Matthew Proctor (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, oppose renaming. As has been pointed out elsewhere, more than once and with persuasive examples, it is common, widespread and accepted usage to say "women writers." And since it is Wikipedia policy to follow accepted usage, there should be no issue. I agree with those who say that we need to look at each category on a case-by-case basis and avoid standardization for its own sake. — scribbling woman 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:HQFL Logos

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: HQFL.dk is long defunct, and there is only one logo in this cat. Ben Stone 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ben Jelen 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 speedy keep. These categories are always kept, so closing per WP:SNOW.--Mike Selinker 06:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Already have {{Ben Jelen}}. Wikipedian 03:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Category:Albums by artist: "Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded." If Ben Jelen's albums are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia, he should have a category for his albums. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Information technology NGOs

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Information technology NGOs to Category:Information technology organisations

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Another recent creation of a substantially similar category. Lquilter 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 14:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dissolved non-governmental organizations

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Dissolved non-governmental organizations to Category:Defunct organizations

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Another largely redundant category with fewer entries than the older category. Lquilter 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 14:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Journalism NGOs

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Journalism NGOs to Category:Journalism organizations

Nominator's rationale: Merge, One entry; better to use the more generic Category:Journalism organizations which also has more content. Lquilter 01:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 14:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Science NGOs

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Science NGOs to Category:Scientific organizations

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Part of the same cleanup of organizations. This is a relatively recent category that is largely redundant of Category:Scientific organizations which is much more elaborately built out. Lquilter 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rogue Valley Wranglers

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete two article cat for a lower level hockey team; just not needed. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 14:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Remote Sensing

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Remote sensing. the wub "?!" 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete this category was found in the orphanage. It wasn't what I expected (something ESP related), but what these things have in common is not really categorizable and so the category fails. Google Earth provides remote sensing, so does a photo of the earth's surface, an atlas, a website showing the waves breaking in Santa Cruz, the evening news showing carnage in Iraq, or tv shows and films depicting far away places with strange sounding names. Carlossuarez46 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Remote sensing is a perfectly respectable branch of knowledge and the parent page branches out to other articles. Some articles in this category, such as Google Earth, which is too general, could be removed from the category. Someone needs to address what is in this category rather than delete it. --Bduke 03:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recognizable field of research Travtim^(Talk) 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If kept it needs to be renamed with a lower-case "s". Otto4711 15:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rename to Category:Remote sensing per bduke & Otto. Johnbod 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rename to Category:Remote sensing per bduke & Otto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Presidents of Khalistan

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete unclear that this office actually exists or perhaps rename to "pretenders to the Khalistan presidency" if one can pretend to a theoretically elective office (for which no elections have been held apparently). Carlossuarez46 00:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There is no such state as Khalistan, so this category fails WP:CRYSTAL. The head article President of Khalistan is unreferenced, but this article confirms that the title is in fact a self-proclaimed one by a largely defunct secessionist movement. Since it is not possible to be the president of a state which does not exist, none of the people in this category was ever 'President of Khalistan' in any meaningful sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lost alpine ski areas and resorts in New England

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

The result of the debate was relisted on dec 14. Kbdank71 15:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed, one organization's designation; these apparently aren't lost in the sense of cannot be found but in the "defunct" sense. If kept, a change in name along those lines is probably in order, but one unofficial organization's characterization of them as "lost" shouldn't be the basis of a category - any more than having Top 100 type categories. Carlossuarez46 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Lost" is used instead of something like "closed" is due to the seasonality of the business - since most operating ski areas close for 8 months of the year. "Defunct" could also be used, however with 10 years of research by NELSAP - and other regions of the country not aligned with NELSAP, "lost" has become the commonly used word for skiers and ski industry officials. Jrclark 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. However we probably need to add a defunct category for the US since there are so many of these that have gone belly up. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we should delete unless we indeed merge to a wider category. I suspect the New England list will grown in coming months with the ski season heating up. There are hundreds of defunct ski areas in New England, the more notable ones already appearing here on Wikipedia. I do suggest we analyze the differences between the regional lost ski areas - the northeastern ski industry is very much different than other regions in the United States. There are also repetitions of names across the country that don't necessarily appear in a New England or Northeast only category (which may lead one to consider keeping the regions in separate categories).Jrclark (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose or Merge per notes above. Jrclark (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Worker's NGOs

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

The result of the debate was relisted on dec 14. Kbdank71 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Worker's NGOs to Category:Labor organizations

Nominator's rationale: Merge into Category:Labor organizations, the broader category. This is a relatively recent category added into the Category:Non-governmental organizations, which is largely separate from the rest of Category:Organizations and which I am now sorting through as part of a larger project to clean-up Category:Organizations. Also, it is improperly apostrophized. Lquilter 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 14:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I haven't looked more broadly at the possible members of this category, but in general Category:Labor organizations seems best suited to trade unions ... but those are not the only forms of workers organisations. In Emglans, working mens clubs are a huge social phenomenon, and there are many other other bodies which belong in this category, such as the Workers' Educational Association and the Labour Research Department. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once you've looked at the specifics of the various categories you may feel differently. I've been mopping up this category along with others and we now have several more specific cats in an overarching category called Category:Labor organizations. This includes Category:Trade unions and several others including Category:Labor studies organizations which might be appropriate for one of the two you've mentioned. There's not one so far as I'm aware for Category:Labor social clubs (or maybe Category:Workers' social clubs) but I agree it's an important area; I just haven't seen the individual organization articles that would fit there.

In general the "NGOs" tree is problematic because it's poorly defined & largely redundant of several of the other trees (esp. "Category:Non-profit organizations" and "Category:Charities"). Each term is used in a slightly different context but in practice, as we have discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations, they are all rather redundant. I'm not proposing a giant remake right now (although that's in the works) but just cleaning up the various subjects. It was not very differentiated and I'd planned to just go in and clean out the individual member articles but last month a whole subject tree got built out, without awareness of other similar categories. (Plus "NGOs" isn't spelled out, but that's the least of the problems.) I decided to do most of these "X NGOs" noms separately because sometimes the NGO ones cover areas that weren't covered by existing trees, sometimes the subjects are slightly different, etc. So a bunch are coming. --Lquilter 20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Labor organizations are not necessarily workers organizations, as was quite obvious in the various Eastern Block countries where the parties in power perported to be so but the claim was specious at best. Some labor organizations seems best described as organizations that try to get as much for themselves at the expense of ordinary workers but claiming to be working on their behalves. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting opinions. Would you care to propose a category structure & names? --Lquilter (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's in the cat are a few organizations that aren't limited to labor issues (but also, immigration, "food sovereignty", fair trade, social betterment of the under privileged, and other causes), so upmerge it to the next higher level. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:List of Shadow Yamato X characters

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

The result of the debate was delete since all content was deleted. the wub "?!" 23:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete one article category found in the orphanage, not needed as there is a navbox for these. If kept drop the "List of" per convention. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rename without "list" Travtim^(Talk) 14:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per comments on this CFD this game is a hoax and so all material relating to it should be deleted. Otto4711 19:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFD of the category contents and other hoaxalicious material. Otto4711 19:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kingdom of the Netherlands

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. the wub "?!" 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Kingdom of the Netherlands to Category:Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Merge, what seems to be going on here is a category that is overarching the Netherlands and its overseas territories, but the categorization seems to be mixed up and perhaps a merger is the best option. Carlossuarez46 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as is. Nothing mixed up here as a reading of the main article Kingdom of the Netherlands shows. The 'Netherlands' is but one constituent part of the 'Kingdom of the Netherlands'. Merging them would be like merging the Commonwealth of Nations with the United Kingdom. Merging would mix up everything. Hmains 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not the same Travtim^(Talk) 14:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains. Snocrates 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Graduate Degrees in Nonprofit Organizations

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete categorizing schools by which degrees they offer and in which subjects is opening up a whole slew of categories that will obscure meaningful categories on all university pages. WP is not a college guide. Carlossuarez46 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom's reasoning; some universities could fall into dozens if not hundreds of such cats. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely delete. Possibly listify on the relevant page (non-profit studies?, if this is a new or small enough field that individual programs are uniquely notable. --Lquilter 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 14:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's reasoning - I had created the category in the first place, but per Lquilter's suggestion created an article for such degrees (comparable to those for other graduate degrees) --Blahblah29 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Spider-Man film series

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

The result of the debate was delete and salt. the wub "?!" 23:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Speedy Delete as a recreation category... or more aptly "current incarnation". Salting may be warranted. J Greb 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions (from ProveIt's handy index) are:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_16#Category:Spider-Man_actors (delete)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_2#Category:Spider-Man_villains (speedy delete as recreation)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_5#Category:Spider-Man_film_series_actors (delete)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_19#Category:Spider-Man_film_series_actors (delete, salt)

Nothing's changed, save that this one mixes together actors etc AND characters, so is a recreation with "performers by performance" for good measure. Doubleplusungood. Speedy delete and salt. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this multiply re-created category. I don't know about its current creator, but its past creators under its various misspelled and incorrectly capitalized titles kept turning out to be sockpuppets for the same person. Doczilla (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Joke religions

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

The result of the debate was relisted on dec 14. Kbdank71 15:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rename per nom for consistency with main article. Snocrates 03:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I believe the correct name for this category should be Category:Parodies of religion: all of the articles are about parodies, but only some of them are about actual "Parody religions". Cgingold 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with "of" added for clarity Travtim^(Talk) 14:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's another "Joke category" -- Category:Joke organizations -- that I've been pondering what to do with. Is the sense that "parody" is just the preferred way of saying "joke", or is this something that's applicable only to the religion cat at issue here? --Lquilter 16:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined that cat and nominated it for deletion as a result. >Radiant< 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Parody" suggests that the fake religions are parodying a specific religion (my dictionary says that parodies are of "a particular writer, artist," etc.) and that isn't what I'm seeing in the category. I would suggest renaming to Category:Satirical religions. Recury (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename "Joke religions" is in the eye of the beholder as "Joke" can connote fake/false. "Parody" is also problematic as most of Christendom could consider Satanism as a parody of Christianity (black sabbath, black mass, and didn't Satan originate in the Bible), and some governments view Scientology as a business in religious garb; so "parody religion" is also in the eye of the beholder. "Satirical religion" comes closest, but who knows some people may actually believe in these as real religions - people's religious beliefs defy logic and many need "something" and who are we to say that these aren't "new age" or "modern" real religions rather than religions of a lesser God. If we keep this: I propose Category:Leadership-free modern religions because this is what distinguishes these from the itinerant holy man/woman drumming up business for his/her gods. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Satirical" would also be fine with me. I object to deletion, because the cat has a meaningful and non-trivial grouping of material that isn't found elsewhere. I also object to your LFMR name, because (1) it's too PC, and (2) some of these have leaders and/or aren't modern. >Radiant< 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Satirical comes closest of other people's ideas. I didn't check each article, but SubGenius, Cthulhu, anything StarWarsy or Matrixy is clearly "modern" in a religious sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As said above, a parody needs to be directed at something specific, and I don't think satirical works either, for the similar reason that a satire needs to be satirising something. A joke religion could just be a joke, without any particular agenda or point to make at all. Leadership-free modern religions is no good, because it would include pretty much every pentecostal church in existence.--Matthew Proctor (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They would be satirising religion in general. Recury (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Clearly a rename is needed. Either Category:Parodies of religion or Category:Satirical religions would be an improvement. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Arguments for the existence of God and Category:Arguments against the existence of God

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. the wub "?!" 23:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying logical constructs and a plethora of arbitrary semi-related issues as arguments for or against divinity does not strike me as such a good idea. It smells like original research for a part, and more importantly is precisely one of those issues that needs to be covered extensively in an article, rather than tucked into the bottom as a cat tag. Delete both, since we already have the article. >Radiant< 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/don't outright delete I wouldn't mind combining the two categories, but I feel that it is important to at least group them. These are all spinout articles from the Existence of God articles. Pascal's Wager, the ontological argument (which is currently uncategorized...), the Problem of evil, and Lewis's trilemma are all examples of articles discussing philosophical/theological arguments concerning the existence of god and I feel they should be categorized together (instead of say throwing them in the parent categories Category:God, Category:Theology and Category:Philosophical arguments). I'm not sure it is necessary to separate them between "for" and "against", but I think there is a distinct and logical categorization of these articles.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The categorization seems reasonable given the articles as they are. There probably are too many articles, but merging or deleting them is not our role. Sort out the articles first & we can see what categorisation is needed. Johnbod 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems to me that some things definitively are arguments for or against the existence of G/god(s), or, relatedly, for or against believing in G/god(s); e.g., Pascal's wager; Russell's teapot, the argument from design, the argument from miracles, and so forth. Shouldn't logical arguments & proofs & what-not be organized according to subject? ... As for WP:OR, I have to object in the strongest terms -- To call these "original research" is kinda nuts when they are basically the syllabus headings in any 100-level philosophy of religion class. It doesn't even make logical sense -- Proofs/arguments are by definition intended to do what they say they're intended to do. They may be failed proofs or unsuccessful arguments but they're still on that topic. So how is it original research to say they're on that topic? (Plus every discussion of these things everywhere will describe them as just exactly that: "an attempted proof of god's non/existence" etc. So they will be referenced galore and definitively not WP:OR. ... Sorry if there's some obvious thing here I'm missing. It's really late at night and this CFD makes less sense to me the longer I stare at it. --Lquilter 06:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These categories open the door to hundreds of "arguments" categories , as many as there are controversial issues. Strong delete Travtim^(Talk) 15:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of these i looked at were specifically articles on arguments on the subject; I don't see this as a problem. Johnbod 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a problem with weeding, in any case, not an argument to delete. I'm beginning to get the sense that people don't grok "argument" as a term of art in philosophy. --Lquilter 15:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These categories productively group related ideological concepts. The nominator's complaint of original research is unsupported. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 11:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm inclined to agree with the nom, as there can be infinite variations on the theme: Category:Arguments that Jesus was the Christ, Category:Arguments that Jesus was not the Christ, Category:Arguments that Mary was perpetually virgin, Category:Arguments that Mary was not perpetually virgin, Category:Arguments that Muhammad was a prophet, Category:Arguments that Muhammad was not a prophet, Category:Arguments that Moses was a Muslim, Category:Arguments that Moses was not a Muslim, Category:Arguments that the head of the Latter Day Saints church is a prophet, Category:Arguments that the head of the Latter Day Saints church is not a prophet, Category:Arguments that God's name is Jehovah, Category:Arguments that God's name isn't Jehovah, debating every religious doctrine: the existence vel non of God is only the tip of the iceberg and isn't particularly relevant to religions without that concept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord (ahem), haven't you people actually looked at the articles in question? They explain themselves as arguments for/against the existence of god. I mean, we can change the category name to lower-case "g", but these are the classical arguments in philosophy. Not arguments like Carlossuarez46 and I have, but arguments as in "philosophical constructs". See Category:Philosophical arguments. --Lquilter (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But who makes these arguments? There are no doubt sourceable opinions that God exists because: <fill in purported mirace here>; or that God doesn't exist because: <fill in misfortune here>. You may not think these are sufficiently philosophical constructs, but they have been powerful persuaders over time, and are encyclopedic. So should "saints" be a subcategory here as no doubt each has some miracle ascribed to him or her thus an argument for existence of God. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is a subcategory in the philosophical arguments category -- so we're talking about categorizing a set of philosophical propositions by their purpose. "Who makes them?" Philosophers and religious scholars, mostly. Should a new argument arise that would be properly classed a "philosophical argument" then it should reasonably be placed here. But don't worry: there won't be that many. People have been attacking this issue for millennia and there's only a handful of arguments on either side. I don't believe a new one has been introduced in a really long time. (In other words, please look at the articles. This isn't Mary & Tom arguing last Thursday about whether that was a UFO or Jesus in the cloud. We're also not talking about specific phenomena or specific miracles, like whether or not St. Whatsis bled thru the nose when he saw Jesus. We're talking about types of arguments, e.g., "the argument from miracles". .... Speaking of which -- the names for those classic arguments which you raise are the argument from miracles and the problem of evil. They're already named & included in Category:Philosophy of religion. How would you categorize "argument from miracles, argument from revelation, and so on, if not as "Category:Arguments for the existence of God? It's one of the two fundamental category concepts in philosophy of religion. --Lquilter (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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