Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 6

[edit]

Category:Islands of the Republic of Ireland

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 13:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
and other landforms
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to include the word "county" in the names of these sub-categories of Category:Islands of the Republic of Ireland. The word "county" is needed for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town.
Each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 6 October 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:Townlands of the Republic of Ireland

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to include the word "county" in the names of these sub-categories of Category:Townlands of the Republic of Ireland. The word "county" is needed for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town. (A "townland" is a small geographical unit of land used in Ireland and Scotland; confusingly, in Ireland it is predominantly a rural term.)
Each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the proposal for the reasons given by the proposer. (Sarah777 00:04, 7 October 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.
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 to Category:Australian films. Kbdank71 14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian cult films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as subjective. I was sad to see Cult films go, but we could never come up with an objective definition. -- Prove It (talk) 21:49, 6 October 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:Electric buses

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 14:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose renaming Category:Electric buses to Category:Electric buses (vehicles)
Nominator's rationale: Rename Ambiguity between vehicles that employ electric engines, and electric standards used in electric circuits (e.g. computers). --Koopa turtle 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename for consistency with Electric bus (vehicle). LeSnail 21:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename (changing vote) --that's what I get for not performing due diligence. The more I think about it, the less ambiguous it seems. LeSnail 00:16, 7 October 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:Crvena Jabuka albums

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Crvena Jabuka albums to Category:Crvena jabuka albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename, correct caps per Crvena jabuka; non-English name of the band, so English language capitalization rules don't apply. GregorB 19:31, 6 October 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:Chattanooga Mocs men's basketball coaches

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

The result of the debate was keep. As much as I agree with BHG and the overcat issue, we already have Category:College men's basketball coaches and Category:College women's basketball coaches, which do a good job of dealing with not only men's vs women's sports, but also with teams that use the same name or different names (see Category:Florida Gators men's basketball coaches, Category:Florida Gators women's basketball coaches and Category:Arkansas Razorbacks basketball coaches, Category:Arkansas Ladybacks basketball coaches). Combining two differently named things into one category makes no sense. If a Lady Mocs category is needed, create it. Kbdank71 14:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I misunderstood what was being asked for here. The new result of the debate is rename. (Thanks Mike!). --Kbdank71 15:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chattanooga Mocs men's basketball coaches to Category:Chattanooga Mocs basketball coaches
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is another school that has different nicknames for men's and women's teams, with all women's teams being known as Lady Mocs. See the school's official athletics site. Dale Arnett 19:29, 6 October 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.

More Irish county categories

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 13:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish counties have an eponymous county town.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 6 October 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.
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 oct 12. Kbdank71 14:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Alumni of Elam Art School to Category:Elam Art School alumni, per convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in New Zealand. LeSnail 16:09, 6 October 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 in the Republic of Ireland by locality

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Religion in the Republic of Ireland by locality to Category:Religion in the Republic of Ireland by county
Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 6 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National association of Biology Teachers past presidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, already a list at List of National Association of Biology Teachers presidents, or at least Rename to Category:National Association of Biology Teachers presidents. -- Prove It (talk) 15:45, 6 October 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:Transport in the Republic of Ireland by locality

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transport in the Republic of Ireland by locality to Category:Transport in the Republic of Ireland by county
Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 6 October 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:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Ireland by locality

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Ireland by locality to Category:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Ireland by county
Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 6 October 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:Geography of the Republic of Ireland by locality

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Geography of the Republic of Ireland by locality to Category:Geography of the Republic of Ireland by county
Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town.
See also similar CfRs below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 6 October 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:Sport in the Republic of Ireland by locality

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 13:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sport in the Republic of Ireland by locality to Category:Sport in the Republic of Ireland by county
Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town.
Some spirting activities in Ireland are also organised at a provincial level (Munster, Leinster, Connacht, and Ulster), so I have moved those sport-by-province categories to the parent category Category:Sport in the Republic of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 6 October 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.
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. Kbdank71 14:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Days observed in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Holidays in the Soviet Union, convention of Category:Public holidays by country. -- Prove It (talk) 14:06, 6 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 14:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni of University of Auckland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:University of Auckland alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in New Zealand. -- Prove It (talk) 13:56, 6 October 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:Tourism in the Republic of Ireland by locality

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 13:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees.
The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 6 October 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:Fictional fictional characters

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Metafictional characters. Personal opinion ahead, has nothing to do with the closing: This has to be the stupidest category I've seen in about a week (what can I say, they pop up often). A "Fictional fictional character" by definition is a "Fictional character". Itchy and scratchy are characters that exist in fiction. Period. And look, there is Category:Fictional characters! Why the ever-loving need to oh never mind, nobody is going to read this anyway. All this from an article that has no sources and should probably be deleted (shakes head) . Kbdank71 14:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional fictional characters to something else.
Nominator's rationale: If I pronounce fictional fictional character I sound silly. I don't know what the hell this should be called, that's why I'm nominating it. I'm suggesting to rename it into a less silly tone, nothing else.. TheBlazikenMaster 13:40, 6 October 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:WikiProject Timeline Tracer Friends

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

The result of the debate was already dealt with at UCFD.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Timeline Tracer Friends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete requested by author. This category is obsolete, new internal listing of members by level has been implemented Daoken 12:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy close or speedy delete as (a) this is something for WP:UCFD and a discussion is already taking place there about this; (b) in the alternative, author requests deletion both in that discussion and this one, and I can't see a compelling reason to deny that request. BencherliteTalk 13:42, 6 October 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:Protoscience

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

The result of the debate was relisted on oct 12. Kbdank71 14:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protoscience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: unmaintainable due to the polysemy of the term. "protoscience" can mean (a) the pre-modern history of science, (b) scientific conjectures, (c) fringe science, all of which already have due categories. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only begun sorting through the array of issues that need to be considered in order to arrive at a well-grounded recommendation. First and foremost, this category is one of a group of related categories -- including Category:Pseudoscience and Category:Fringe science -- and needs to be evaluated in that context. (In fact, there is yet a fourth such category, Category:Voodoo science, which is such a hideously stupid name for a category that I just put it up for deletion a little while ago.) Besides the issue of the related cats, there is a whole lot more that needs to be discussed, which I simply don't have time to go into at this moment. But I will take that up when I find the time later today. Cgingold 15:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - After spending a considerable amount of time rooting around in these categories and subcats, and reading a goodly number of main articles, as well as several lengthy talk page discussions, I've come full circle and can now say authoritatively, This is all a huge mess!

There have been any number of discussions of the same basic kinds of issues we're grappling with here, with little discernible progress towards resolving disagreements and achieving a stable concensus on choice and usage of terminology. Notwithstanding that, the articles Fringe science and Pseudoscience do seem to have arrived at a reasonably good delineation of their subjects.

Protoscience, however, has not achieved stability, and was recently completely overhauled -- resulting in a very different presentation of the subject -- by User:Dbachmann (who, I've just discovered, is none other than User:dab). This suggests that the notion of "Protoscience" may simply not be well-enough established (and defined) to serve as a functional category on Wikipedia. Although I have a pretty good sense of how I myself would use Category:Protoscience if I were put in charge of it -- in a nutshell, I would use it for fields such as Category:Astrobiology and Category:Evolutionary psychology -- the problem, of course, is that the criteria are bound to be construed and applied in rather different ways by the various editors who make use of it. Bottom line -- as much as I might like to use it in the way I described, all such judgments would surely have to be reached on the basis of WP:OR.

Dbachmann has suggested keeping the category purely for pre-modern topics. No doubt that would make it much easier to define and restrict, but I'm not sure that there's enough material to justify the existence of the category. What else would it be used for, besides Category:Alchemy and presumably, Category:Proto-evolutionary biologists? For example, what about Category:Astrology, does that qualify as a Protoscience, or is it just a precursor? Cgingold 15:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People executed by burning at the stake

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People executed by burning at the stake to Category:People executed by burning
Nominator's rationale: YThe reason is simple and obvious why this should be renamed, not all people executed by burning are necessarily burned at the stake. Though a large number are, this would make the category more inclusive and sensible as a subcategory of Category:Executions by method. IvoShandor 09:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, for greater inclusivity. It doesn't seem fair to discriminate against people who were burnt in the wrong way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions - There's a number of articles in there now, about 2 dozen. Are these all burning at the stake (as the category name implies)? How many people in WP are "burned" by methods other than the stake? Are there significant differences in the crimes for which these are the punishments that would suggest it reasonable to have two separate categories? Are other "burnings" done more or less humanely? I know, for instance, that burning at the stake was often a punishment for heresy & witchcraft; and that it wasn't uncommon for strangulation to precede burning at the stake as a humanitarian measure. I'm not familiar with other kinds of burnings as executions, although I know they have been used in the Holocaust, other genocides, and war -- is that what's intended to be included here? Or is it intended to exclude those war/genocide killings and only add in other individual-crime state executions by burning? Any sense of how many such things would be? --lquilter 21:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about those details, I do know that the article here is called Execution by burning and that I just wrote Execution of Lucy and James Sample who were tied to a tree a burned in a pile of wood, not really the traditional burning at the stake. I think the category implies individuals, as there are more appropriate cats for victims of genocide. IvoShandor 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically to me, having this category named as it is now is similar to having a category called Category:People executed by hanging with rope or Category:People executed by firing squad with rifles.IvoShandor 01:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, then. This last example made me life laugh (weird freudian slip) and pushed me over the edge to "rename". However, if the category populates over time and it turns out the types of burnings are notably distinguishable, then the rename shouldn't preclude revisiting the decision. --lquilter 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I was just poking around the category a bit and there are articles about people who were burned but not at the stake. Though the article on execution by burning is nearly void of key references, it does describe some methods of burning that are referenced and are not at the stake. But subcats can always be made and populated as needed. IvoShandor 11:51, 9 October 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:Myanmar

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Myanmar only. None of the subcats I saw were tagged for renaming. If you would like the subcats renamed as well, please tag them and nominate them separately. Kbdank71 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Myanmar to Category:Burma
Nominator's rationale: Rename, in line with WP:RM. See Talk:Burma#Requested move -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-categories are categories - (almost) everything is a sub-cat of something else. Really they should be tagged. Johnbod 14:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you wrote: However, we should give serious consideration to retaining certain sub-categories under the heading of "Myanmar" -- for example, Category:Foreign relations of Myanmar and Category:Military of Myanmar, and probably some others -- since they deal with issues that are specifically related to the country under its current name.
How I paraphrased it: The assertion that the topics in the subcats Category:Foreign relations of Myanmar and Category:Military of Myanmar, and probably others, are affiliated only with the junta is incorrect.
I don't see that as a mischarcterization, if it is I apologize, but that looks like it was what you were saying. IvoShandor 12:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, half of the articles in the foreign relations cat have Burma in their title. IvoShandor 12:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, I was merely pointing out that your paraphrase was off the mark: I didn't claim that all of the articles in those categories pertain only to the junta, but rather that the junta/Myanmar is the principal focus. I did note the name Burma in some titles, nonetheless the focus of those articles is on the foreign relations of the current regime in Myanmar. So I think there is reason to give serious consideration to retaining the name Myanmar in those categories. I'm not arguing that it is definitively the correct thing to do, I'm merely pointing out that these facts need to be evaluated so the question can be addressed and resolved, one way or the other. Cgingold 14:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Its not possible to choose an apolitical naming convention here. The UN recognises Myanmar, a name chosen by the ruling junta, but not USA & UK. Burma is still the commonly-accepted name in the modern English speaking world (as opposed to its older spelling of Burmah), and its democratic opposition parties. The WP article spells out the etymology of the name and has some useful links to the usage of the name. However, a point of order, the CfD template should be added ASAP to all subcats in order to draw it to the attention of their contributors. Ephebi 13:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support rename per WP:RM 132.205.44.5 03:22, 9 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a category just for television shows that are currently airing? Never mind that this category doesn't even contain most currently airing TV shows, just a small random smattering. And sometimes it's been added to a show's character list instead of the article on the show. Delete, sez me. Bearcat 03:09, 6 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 13:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online Jewelers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Jewellers, or at least rename to Category:Online jewellers. -- Prove It (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - some good Afd candidates here! Johnbod 01:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No benefit to classifying jewellers by their use of what is now a routine mode of doing business. --20:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
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. Kbdank71 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Philippine radio stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Lists of radio stations, or at least Rename to Category:Lists of radio stations in the Philippines. -- Prove It (talk) 00:32, 6 October 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:Wikipedia media files

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy close per WP:SNOW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Category:Wikipedia media files (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This and all the subcats store media. The storing of media is the purpose of Wikimedia Commons. It would be easier to find and use if we keep our media materials in one place. Having two places also duplicates material. Are there valid and convincing reasons for storing media on Wikipedia in addition to Commons? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy oppose or whatever. Yes, there are, as a look at the sub-cats shows - featured images, Picture of the day, fair use images etc etc. As long as we have images etc we should have a category structure to track them. Johnbod 00:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons also uses a category system for grouping together images. There is one for copyright status, for image source and featured pictures. The structure allows for the creation of the sorts of grouping you are talking about - if the cat is not already there, then one can be created. Unless there is a rule against creating a cat on Commons for "Wikipedia featured images"? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many images, especially fair use ones, cannot be uploaded to Commons, but can be here. The English Wikipedia should contain and control its own featured content. I also wish many users would upload to Commons & not here, but abolishing the category structure is certainly the wrong way to go about this. Johnbod 14:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator with too much time on their hands. This is an infrastructure category for Wikipedia as a working environment to write an encyclopedia, rather than an idealised semantic construct - David Gerard 14:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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