Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 7

< December 6	December 8 >

December 7

Category:Fictional messiahs

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category perhaps could be useful, but is currently filled with articles of original research and fan theories, largely ignoring the definition of messiah used in that article. Messiahs "categorized" here include Harry Potter, Darth Vader, Jean Grey, and all of the "slayers" in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. None of which are identified in their individual universes as being "messiah", hence original research. JRP 22:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but to be fair, the Slayers in Buffy are described as sort of messiah figures of a generation, but then so is Angel in a weird way.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ill defined and ripe vandalism target (everyone wants their favorite fictional character to be a messiah). Danny Lilithborne 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and prune - that a cat may end up containing inappropriate articles is a terrible reason for nominating it for deletion. If the category is useful and encyclopedic (which IMHO this is) then the solution is to monitor it to remove articles that are added inappropriately, not delete. Otto4711 07:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a list serve the purpose better? For example, Ash Ketchum fulfills the definition of messiah (Pokemon 2000) but because it's not annotated, the category is frequently removed. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's already a list, but I've seen Pokemon 2000 and still can't imagine calling Ash a messiah. Can you, or anyone, cite any references (outside your fan-reading of the film itself) that says that Ash in Pokemon 2000 is an example of a messiah in fiction? JRP 10:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "The world will turn to Ash [to save it]" ... ie. he is a prophesied hero.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not objectively definable. (Radiant) 12:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this mess of a category. Inadequately defined, it is chock full of inappropriate examples and, if it continues to exist, always will be because of the overgeneralized and POV-laden use of the term. Doczilla 06:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kuralyov 18:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Messiah is so POV it makes my eyes bleed. Aside from that, it really couldn't be called a defining characteristic if 99% of all characters in fiction save the world in some way. Axem Titanium 21:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Academics by type of institution

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, aparently created just to parent Category:Seminary professors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

true, but also to parent other appropriate sub-cats. Thanks. Pastorwayne 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another of this user's inappropriate category creations. — coelacan talk — 12:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Seminary professors

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

The result of the debate was rename to Seminary academics. David Kernow (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Religion academics, or Rename to Category:Seminary academics. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Seminary academics. Not the same thing as Category:Religion academics at all. Wimstead 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename agree with above: Seminary Professors are different from Religion Academics (which are most likely in colleges or universities). Pastorwayne 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Academics by religion

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

The result of the debate was delete all. David Kernow (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should we be categorizing academics by religion? If so, we should create Category:Academics by religion instead. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a meaningful intersection. (Radiant) 12:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see the point of these categories. Olborne 13:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't particularly see the point in these, but do we have a category for academics in religious studies? Mairi 03:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean Category:Religion academics? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose so; the lack of description and categorization make it hard to tell. Mairi 21:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep academics deserve to be categorized by religion, just as writers are and all sorts of other professions. thanks. Pastorwayne 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd favor renaming/retooling these and putting them in Category:Religion academics. Right now Judaic studies is the only sub-cat, but I think Sufi or Christian studies would be valuable subcats as well.--T. Anthony 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is inappropriate and not constructive. I'm a professor and I think this is just wrong. You have too much room to say inappropriate things about people. Suppose a student thinks my skeptical attitude about all things paranormal makes me atheist. Suppose my church membership is my own personal business and none of theirs. Doczilla 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorization. The guideline for when a category is worth keeping is, could you write an article about it? Is there a particular phenomenon that has been noted by reliable third-party sources that we could make an article about here? Is there something about academia that tends to attract Voodoo priests, for instance, and has this been analyzed? An example given in the guidelines is that we have a Category:LGBT writers because there is actually a genre or whatever of LGBT literature. But there's no trend of any particular overlap here, so this is overcategorization, literally meaningless. — coelacan talk — 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Baltimore and Ohio Railroad lines in Ohio

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reorganization on WT:TWP. NE2 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:South Branch Valley Railroad and Category:Winchester and Western Railroad

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

The result of the debate was listified at Places on the South Branch Valley Railroad and Places on the Winchester and Western Railroad. David Kernow (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are two short-line railroads; the only things in the categories are towns along the line. It makes sense to have categories for major (Class I) railroads, but not for most short lines. NE2 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral and listify. Both categories contain less than twenty articles, which points toards deletion, but the settlements concerned are not over-categorised, so this isn't causing category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People games

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

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People games into Category:Life simulation games

Upmerge. The term "people games", both as defined by the people game article and, as far as I can tell with a Google search, elsewhere, exists only within the context of games designed by Chris Crawford (game designer); . In addition, given the definition in the article, titles like The Sims definitely do not belong here (but do belong in the parent category, Life simulation games); the existence of this category, therefore, is clearly confusing people. Unint 20:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Recury 21:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:List of national parks of Nigeria

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously mistakenly created. The category Category:National parks of Nigeria does exist. Pascal.Tesson 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Obvious mistake, and the word "list" is tautological in a category name. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pocket sandwiches

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

The result of the debate was listified as Types of pocket sandwich. David Kernow (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Categorizing fruits, vegetables, deserts, and cuisines by product variety would set a terrible precedent, resulting in dozens of useless product cats. This serves no purpose unless it is restricted to articles about the product variety itself, which it isn't, as there aren't any or any need for such articles. Based on the edit histories, it looks like the creator of the cat is trying to list the varieties of Hot Pockets, which already appear in that article, however the author seems to also be working with his own personal definition of a "pocket sandwich", populating the category with no clear rhyme or reason. —Viriditas | Talk 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Possibly listify. (Radiant) 12:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (since I created it) The definition of a sandwich is (from Sandwich) "A sandwich is a food item typically consisting of two pieces of leavened bread between which are laid one or more layers...." Therefore, any item that is built inside a pita or a tortilla, for example, does not belong in Category:Sandwiches --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category only contains one variety, hot pockets. The rest are not classified as pocket sandwiches. See sealed crustless sandwich for the correct definition. Any other use is a misnomer. So if you add the aricle I just mentioned, you are left with two members. There is no need for this category. —Viriditas | Talk 05:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm probably missing the point, but it seems that Category:Vegetables and Category:Fruit are subdivided by variety and in fact somewhat unlogically - sometimes by type, sometimes by country. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to what appeared to be the categorization of hot pocket varieties, as the criteria was unclear. Your comments lead me to believe that instead, you were adding the cat subjectively to items you personally consider "pocket sandwiches". A quick search reveals that pocket sandwiches are usually defined as baked, sealed sandwiches, such as those offered by Amy's, the military (as a MRE), Hot Pockets, and others. —Viriditas | Talk 11:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unusually tasty category, per Viriditas. — coelacan talk — 07:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Architectural Publications

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

The result of the debate was rename (should be speedy!). David Kernow (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Architectural Publications to Category:Architecture publications

Rename, to correct capitalisation and match the subcategories. Wimstead 18:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename. Vegaswikian 02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:British Commonwealth Forces

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been discussed at the Military history WikiProject. The result of this discussion was that the category serves no purpose, as the Commonwealth of Nations has never fielded a military force in the way implied by the category, and is not even a military alliance, much less a military command. The units in the category are therefore better categorized through their national militaries, and this category should be deleted. The full discussion can be read here. Carom 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless. Wandalstouring 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --Nick Dowling 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Buckshot06 03:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless per nom. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Private School UK

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

The result of the debate was merge. Was there no speedy criterion for this one? --RobertG ♬ talk 12:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Private schools in the United Kingdom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Baptists from the United States

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Whisp e ring 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:American Baptists, convention of Category:American Christians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra strong oppose There was already an explanation of why the proposed name is totally inappropriate on the category page, and I clarified the issue on the talk page. Why did I bother? Piccadilly 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, Sorry, didn't notice the explanation on the talk page. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Novels by publisher

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we want to go there! The publisher is significant only for detailing the notable "first edition" but little else. The initial publisher's editor contributes to a greater or lesser extent to the resultant work, but lists of titles by publisher is only of any notability when the list itself becomes of renown. (e.g. Ace Books, Penguin Modern Classics) and even these are quite debateable. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But, like Kevinalewis, without prejudice to categorization at the level of notability. It's an interesting point about Penguin Classics, but mostly too that sort of Category:Books still being read after 100 years = plain notability. --Mereda 10:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Piccadilly 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for Category:Books by publisher and possibly Category:Novels by publisher A bunch of comments here. First, this is obviously going to be related to Category:Books by publisher, so I'd recommend also looking at that category simultaneously with this one. Second, I don't see much difference between having categories of books by publisher and Category:Albums by record label or Category:Films by studio, both of which appear to be accepted for and music and film categorization respectively. Also, I'm inclined to think it's quite possible that some people will be interested in comparing books by particular publishers, especially in cases where the publisher is known for a particular genre of publication or series of books. Finally, I'll note that there is typically only one publisher per book, so there's little danger of overcategorization per article, and that the publisher clearly plays a very important and notable role in the ultimate release of a book. So taking all that into consideration, I'm willing to keep both Books by publisher and Novels by publisher as categories. Just my opinion. Dugwiki 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and considering Dugwiki's comment: perfectly true about the other cats and the publisher's role, but otoh, a book can have more than one publisher if it's reprinted, and several editions are listed in book articles if the info is available. So although it might be an interesting point, I think keeping the category's scope within reason would be harrowing. TTFN, Her Pegship 01:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic; most readers won't know the difference and many novels have been published by multiple publishers. (Radiant) 12:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Radiant. Hawkestone 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the multiple publisher concern, what if the category specifies only original first edition publishers? That would presumably limit it to one such category per book. Dugwiki 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kimora Lee Simmons

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable to rise to the level of eponymous category a la Abraham Lincoln. Otto4711 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chicheley 08:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's generally a bad idea to create unique categories for individual people. The articles in this category can easily be listed in a "See also" section of the main article if desired. Dugwiki 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roman Catholic criminals

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

The result of the debate was delete all. David Kernow (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Is religion relevent here? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Organized crime groups are generally grouped by ethnicity rather then religion and, as far as I know, does not have an influence among organized crime in the United States (as Irish and Italian groups have historically had animosity towards each other regardless of religion). I would assume this article was created as a response to Category:Jewish-American mobsters. Also, Category:Roman Catholic gangsters and Category:Roman Catholic mobsters are interchangable and unnessary in my opinion. I should also point out Category:Italian-American families and Category:Roman Catholic families have also been used on several crime family article which, to point out the obvios, crime families being not actual families but rather criminal organizations based on ethnicity. MadMax 03:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all. This looks like someone trying to make a WP:POINT. I can see little (if any) relevance here for religion, and I imagine that many religious people would find this irrelevant intersection rather offensive. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Category:Roman Catholic criminals had been deleted before. If so speedy delete as recreation, if not delete all as there is no Category:Buddhist criminals or even a Category:Criminals by religion.--T. Anthony 03:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Strong delete all, useless categories. -- Mafia Expert 08:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, irrelevant intersection. (Radiant) 12:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absurd categories. Whether "Jewish-American gangsters" is a proper category is a separate issue.--Mantanmoreland 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless we're going to create matching categories for Jewish criminals, Muslim criminals, etc. No? Didn't think so. Cribcage 05:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization, per deletion precedents. Doczilla 07:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Raphidae

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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, now generally considered not a distinct family. See information on Raphinae page. Dysmorodrepanis 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Texas pastors

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

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Christian pastors, which currently contains only 63 members. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. Unnecessary subdivision of a small category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Christian pastors is just one of several overlapping categories. This whole area is a mess. Piccadilly 15:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I agree. One particular editor seems determined to create as many categories as possible, resulting in massive duplication, lots of sparesely populated categories, and impenetrable hierarchies. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I also agree with Piccadilly that the useful of Category:Christian pastors seems questionable; the organization of that whole area of categories needs to be thought out and discussed more. Mairi 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator - Dr. Submillimeter 13:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. — coelacan talk — 07:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Illinois

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

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American Roman Catholic bishops, which contains only 49 members, see also related discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This proliferation of superfluous categories of clergy in the US is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator - Dr. Submillimeter 13:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. — coelacan talk — 07:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see additional comments to this discussion. I see this as a valid topic. You rushed too quickly to make this decision. Catholic bishops in Illinois are organized into a region under an archbishop, so the category does make sense. Craig.borchardt 25 December 2006

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

Georgia (country) categories

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

The result of the debate was rename except Category:Catholicoses and Patriarchs of Georgia, Category:Monarchs of Georgia, Category:Kings of Georgia and Category:Presidents of Georgia (no dab required). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename as Georgia (country).--Tolpz 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename per WP convention to separate Georgia (state) from Georgia (country) Hmains 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per above. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per above, but please note the proposed change of the stub category for comment at WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have any of the affected categories been tagged? Please do so, as a courtesy to those who may be interested in this discussion, but haven't been made aware of it. And rename, contingent on this being done. Alai 17:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they haven't, and this post is the nominator's only edit. Given how the similar discussions about this issue evolved in the past, it seems pretty inappropriate that this discussion has not been properly announced. The dispute regarding if "Georgia" should link to the country, the state or a disambig. page has been pretty controversial in the past.[1] (four rounds of voting), [2]. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All tagged now. Circeus 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no need to disambiguate Georgia in Category:Catholicoses and Patriarchs of Georgia, Category:Monarchs of Georgia, Category:Kings of Georgia and Category:Presidents of Georgia. The US state of Georgia never had either kings or patriarchs. --Kober 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kober. Nobody will suspect a "king of Georgia" to be from the United States. We should avoid renames if no U.S. equivalent exists, most importantly when it comes to the Kings and Catholicoses. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Kober, some Georgian categories are unique for Georgia only, like Presidents of Georgia, Patriarchs of Georgia, Georgian dissidents, etc. Ldingley 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

American publishers

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

The result of the debate was keep American publishers and delete Ohio publishers, per Caerwine. (Earl Cranston, the article indicated, now has an amended categorization.) David Kernow (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:American publishers (people). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and keep as redirects. Chicheley 08:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. However, if down the road there are enough publisher articles to warrant subdividing them into Category:American publishers by state, then at that point Category:Ohio publishers would be a natural subcategory. Dugwiki 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:American publishers as parent of both Category:American publishers (people) and Category:Publishing companies of the United States, in the same manner as Category:Publishers is the parent of both Category:Publishers (people) and Category:Publishing companies. Delete Category:Ohio publishers and recat the single article into Category:American publishers (people) and Category:People from Ohio. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Delete per Caerwine. Vegaswikian 02:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Caerwine said, a wordy but quite simple untanglement of this potential mess. — coelacan talk — 07:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Religious leaders in Illinois

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

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American religious leaders, which contains only 61 members, see also related discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Unnecessary sub-categorisation of underpopulated category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the other related discussion. If and when there are a lot more American religious leader articles, then at that point subdividing by state will make more sense. Dugwiki 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator - Dr. Submillimeter 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and ban Pastorwayne by name and IP, salt the earth of every category he ever created, wipe his name from the heavenly records, and prepare his special place in hell where he will sort Category:Chinese Buddhist teachers by province until the heat death of the universe. — coelacan talk — 07:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners caused by ATC error

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

The result of the debate was rename to Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners caused by air traffic control per parent category and in lieu of anything shorter. David Kernow (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners caused by ATC error to Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners caused by air traffic control error

Rename to expand abbreviation. I am loathe to propose such a lengthy name, but ATC has too many other possible meanings. -choster 00:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak support for Rename. Ouch! the abbreviation needs to be expanded, but if someone could evise a terser category name which omits the abbreviation, it would be better than this. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lop off its head - Category:Commercial airliner incidents caused by air traffic controller error seems sufficient, as I can't imagine an "accident" that is not also an "incident." It's still too long but nine words is better than 12. Otto4711 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note parent Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners.-choster 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. It's not much worse than Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners caused by bad weather. --Mereda 11:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge/delete, overcat. (Radiant) 12:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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