Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 25

< January 24	January 26 >

January 25 edit

Johannesburg subcategories edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Johannesburg subcategories do not follow the conventions for the relevant subject areas:

Rename all CalJW 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(There are also some which do follow the conventions now, but I just created them myself. CalJW 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 00:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Dbinder 19:30, 29 January 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 page.

Category:Maine state highways to Category:Maine State Routes edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closing admin: Yes, I know there was a consensus to rename, but there was no consensus as to what to rename to. For the record, Maine's own website has a listing for the "state highway system", but not the "state route system". --Kbdank71 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring the category in line with the articles within it and capitalize since Maine State Route is a proper noun according to the MDOT. Gateman1997 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a proper noun and it will bring it in compliance with proposed NC. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename as per nom. Bhoeble 00:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Not a proper noun; not "almost always capitalized"; thus, contrary to the naming conventions for categories (and for everything else). No consensus to make this an exception to these rules, and indeed significant opposition, here. This phrase gets all of 52 google hits with any capitalisation, and most of the sites capitalising it are, surprise-surprise, wikipedia mirrors. Remainder are generally using in contexts like "Maine State Routes 11 and 100", i.e. as shorthand references to specific routes, which do have those as proper names, not as a generic category. As far as I can find, Maine DOT doesn't use this phrase at all, setting aside whether it's an authority on correct capitalisation or good English language style. Alai 22:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would support a rename to Category:Maine state routes, which conforms to the NCs, and to the style of the majority of the majority of the siblings of this category. Alai 22:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're not in consensus here. I reference the other categories such as Category:Iowa State Highways for example. "Maine State Route" is a proper noun because it is a specific type of state route/ highway. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to wait until the end of the vote before commenting on consensus. I plan to take the Iowa example to renaming presently. I won't comment on your assertion (without evidence) here, as I've done so in many other places, including as linked above. Alai 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you'd better take the 10 or so cats, the 20 or so lists, etc. there too. (not really) Highway systems are capitalized. Please understand this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy to do so. I say this about Iowa in particular, since as you know, Iowa's own DoT uses "Iowa state routes". If every time you repeated your bald statement without anything to back it up counted as a separate vote, certainly we'd have a strong consensus for your position. Mercifully that's not how it works. Alai 23:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called reasoning. Iowa State Highways are part of a specific system. Therefore it is a proper noubn. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Gateman1997 01:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move to Category:Maine state routes. While yes, individual route systems are proper nouns, and therefore capatalized, (Maine State Route System for example), the generic term for routes on said system is not (therfore, Maine state route)-Jeff 02:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If assuming I accept your reasoning then I'd like to withdraw this request and change the request to Cat:Maine State Route System.Gateman1997 20:39, 31 January 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 page.

Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians to Category:Millennial Wikipedians edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Category:Millennial Wikipedians has been nominated before, back in October 2005. However, reading the archives of these discussions, here and here, it would seem that (a) one of the discussions was never actually closed, and (b) virtually everybody wanted to either delete or rename. So even if we can't agree which to do, let's at least get rid of one of them. Hence I propose we Rename. Gurch 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

~~Rename~~: I guess. I'd vote to Delete since I don't even understand the point of it. I didn't even pay attention to "Generation X" and I'm part of it - I sure as heck don't care about this thing. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since everyone else is going delete and I wanted to anyway, I changed my vote. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary categorization. Use something like "Wikipedians born in <year>", it's clearer. R adiant _>|< 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. huh? ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 01:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Radiant. --Aaron 04:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial - Smerus 10:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know how this is defined and don't want to. Carina22 18:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge. Original proposer tagged this as a rename. Can we rename one cat to another existing cat? That would be a merge. Both define the cat thus (give or take a word) Wikipedians that are members of Generation Y (or the Millennial Generation), born between (approximately) 1977 and 1993. Perfectly reasonable, clearly defined user cat - there just happen to be two of them. As Category:Millennial Wikipedians is the older and the larger, I would plump for that as the surviving cat as per the nom. Valiantis 00:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians has been deleted per consensus. Category:Millennial Wikipedians has not, since it was not tagged for deletion. I'm putting this back on CFD for another seven days. --Kbdank71 18:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Radiant. -- user:zanimum

*Delete as (possibly localised) slang. Carina22 20:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename it is not "slang" or localized. This generation does not have an official name yet, but this is one of the most common. If this one gets deleted then any other generation should be deleted "Generation X", etc. --Vizcarra 21:56, 26 January 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 page.

Category:Dora the Explorer characters edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains a list at the top and one actual entry. The one entry is actually for the same titled show, not the character. Of the list of characters at the top, only two are blue linked, and both of these turn out to be redirects right back to the show's article. Suggest the category be deleted for now, but be allowed to be recreated in the future if we end up having separate articles for several of the show's characters. - TexasAndroid 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Deleted now. Not sure why it was speedied or deleted outright without allowing for normal CFR time to pass. - TexasAndroid 22:23, 25 January 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 page.

Category:Rugs to Category:Rugs and carpets edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged back in early January, but does not appear to have been listed. Listing now. - TexasAndroid 17:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge, it was here (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_4#Category:Rugs_to_Category:Rugs_and_carpets) and the consensus was to merge. I don't know what happened afterwards and why the first category still exists though. - Bobet 01:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge No problem. Golfcam 05:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per original nomination and concensus at previous discussion--A Y Arktos 22:57, 30 January 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 page.

Category:Prosecutors to Category:District attorneys edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged back in early December, but does not appear to have been listed here. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 17:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename At a cursory check they are all or nearly all American, but any who aren't will need to be moved out. Carina22 20:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - prosecutor is an office in Australia - for example the Director of Public Prosecutions. We do not have District Attorneys. Renaming would be a US-centric action. While we have not written up any notable prosecutors, does not mean that we won't. Not sure how i works in other nations, especially Commonwelath countries. Category District Attorneys already exists.--A Y Arktos 10:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Keeping would be a U.S. centric action as it gives America a monopoly on the term. It can serve as the U.S. subcategory if articles are written for other countries. But the UK Director of Public Prosecutions would just be classified as a lawyer rather than a prosecutor and it may be the same in Australia. Choalbaton 20:07, 31 January 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 page.

Category:Spouses of British Prime Ministers to Category:Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For accuracy and in line with standard designations for UK national political offices. Herostratus 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 00:41, 28 January 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 page.

Category:DOS to Category:Disk operating systems edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category describes operating-system components called disk operating systems. Leaving it with it's abbreviation DOS will cause confusion with people looking for information on the DOS family of operating systems, for which there is already a category:Category:DOS on IBM PC compatibles Ae-a 16:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Guy Harris 20:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Deborah-jl _Talk 18:04, 27 January 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 page.

Category:Talk pages edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to categorize talk pages Ze miguel 09:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. Category is redlinked and so does not exist. What is the question? Herostratus 17:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was speedy deleted earlier today, so this nomination is now moot. [1] — sjorford (talk) 20:46, 25 January 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 page.

Category:Visitor attractions in Hyderabad to Category:Visitor attractions in Hyderabad, India edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a major city of this name in Pakistan. The other subcategories for the Indian city have the qualification at the end. Merchbow 08:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename Merchbow 08:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hyderabad, Pakistan is also a very large city. ×Meegs 12:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. Carina22 20:03, 26 January 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 page.

Category:Affiliated to Visveswaraiah Technological University to Category:Affiliates of Visveswaraiah Technological University edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor presentational improvement. Rename. Merchbow 07:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Support ×Meegs 12:20, 25 January 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 page.

Category:United States historians to Category:Historians of the United States edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is for historians whose subject matter is the United States. Moving the name futher away from the form used for occupation by nationality categories like Category:American historians will hopefully reduce the potential for confusion. There is also the option of giving it a long completely unambiguous name but I can't think of one that would fit both living and dead historians, but isn't excessively long. Rename Sumahoy 07:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Comment (edit: original intent) I don't know that this achieves the goal. Folks will commonly not know the difference between American historians and Historians of the United States. First response is to see both as occupation by nationality categories meaning historians of American naionality. Unfortunately, I can't think of a simply worded alternate...things like Historians of United States history or American history historians are horrible. Writers and scientists by focus are Subject historians format. Unless we can come up with a better alternative, this rename doesn't really make the impact intended. Josh 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed It is a lot better than doing nothing. People will become familiar with the use of "American" for occupational categories now it is used across the board, so the difference here is quite noticeable. The change will also reduce the risk of miscategorisation. CalJW 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Josh. "Historians of the United States" sounds like it indicates historians who are themselves "of the United States" (i.e., American). "United States historians" actually sounds better to me, because it might denote scholars of "United States history". —Caesura ^(t) 04:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. When people were looking for an alternative to "American Xers" they used "united States Xers" not "Xers of the United States", which suggests that the former is more widely associated with nationality, which is the way I see it. Bhoeble 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. At the moment it just sounds like a duplicate. Choalbaton 20:02, 31 January 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 page.

Category:U.S. state capitols to Category:State capitols in the United States edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more U.S. abbreviation to dispose of as per policy. Rename. Sumahoy 07:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Carina22 20:03, 26 January 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 page.

Category:Tourist Places around Bangalore to Category:Visitor attractions in Bangalore edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't match the names of similar categories, eg. Category:Visitor attractions in Mumbai. Breaches guidance on capitalisation. Rename Merchbow 06:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment – change would fix capitalization and match the cat's peers in Category:Visitor attractions by city, but would also narrow the scope of the category. Would members like Doda Alada Mara and Muthyalamaduvu still belong under the new name? ×Meegs 12:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. Wikipedia is not a tourist guide and should not be in the business of recommending day-trips. Visitor attractions in Hyderabad (maybe including the suburbs) belong in this category. Visitor attractions elsewhere in Karnataka belong in category:Vistor attractions in Karnataka. Bhoeble 19:34, 25 January 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 page.

Publishers edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "publisher" is applied to both companies and people. We have a mixture of categories for companies and categories for people, and while a few of the names already include "(people)" many do not make it clear what the category is for.

Category:Board game publishers --> Category:Board game publishing companies
Category:Book publishers --> Category:Book publishing companies
Category:Book publishers by country --> Category:Book publishing companies by country
Category:Book publishers of Australia --> Category:Book publishing companies of Australia
Category:Book publishers of Canada --> Category:Book publishing companies of Canada
Category:Book publishers of France --> Category:Book publishing companies of France
Category:Book publishers of Germany --> Category:Book publishing companies of Germany
Category:Hong Kong publishers --> Category:Publishing companies of Hong Kong
Category:Book publishers of Italy --> Category:Book publishing companies of Italy
Category:Book publishers of South Korea --> Category:Book publishing companies of South Korea
Category:Book publishers of the Netherlands --> Category:Book publishing companies of the Netherlands
Category:Singaporean publishers --> Category:Publishing companies of Singapore
Category:Book publishers of the United Kingdom --> Category:Book publishing companies of the United Kingdom
Category:Book publishers of the United States --> Category:Book publishing companies of the United States
Category:Comic book publishers --> Category:Comic book publishing companies
Category:Card game publishers --> Category:Card game publishing companies
Category:Magazine publishers --> Category:Magazine publishers (people)
Category:Magazine companies --> Category:Magazine publishing companies
Category:Music publishers --> Category:Music publishing companies
Category:Newspaper publishers --> Category:Newspaper publishers (people)
Category:Newspaper publishers of the 19th century --> Category:Newspaper publishers of the 19th century (people)
Category:Newspaper publishers of the 20th century --> Category:Newspaper publishers of the 20th century (people)
Category:Newspaper publishers of the 21st century --> Category:Newspaper publishers of the 21st century (people)
Category:Role-playing game publishers --> Category:Role-playing game publishing companies
Rename all CalJW 04:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good, thanks. ··gracefool |☺ 05:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was going to suggest renames to several of these untill I started to see the bigger problem. I think this solution works to clear up the confusion. Vegaswikian 07:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've thought about this for RPG publishers, so I support the renaming. Jonas Karlsson 17:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support all, though I think it would be better syntax for the people categories to be Category:Magazine publishing executives and the like.--Mike Selinker 08:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everyone in them is/was an executive. They include owners who didn't work in an executive capacity. The whole businesspeople structure is unsatisfactory, and I would quite like to see most of the subcategories renamed to use the word "people" which is the only term which covers every position in business. CalJW 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am the author of the music publisher article, and agree that "music publishing companies" is a more fitting title for the present "music publishers" category. A "music publishers" category might better be devoted to individuals who are publishers or involved in publishing, such as Morris Levy or Dick James. Zephyrad 23:34, 29 January 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 page.

Category:Mexican musical groups by city edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded overcategorization; The main category, Category:Mexican musical groups, is not pupulated enough to even have subcategories, and even if it was, this is still too much. ---> Sagitario 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Accurate and fits well with parent categories. With the amount of Mexican musical groups it should eventually be well populated. --Vizcarra 06:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose– as per Vizcarra. --Abögarp 17:53, 26 January 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 page.

Category:Mexican musical groups by genre edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded overcategorization; The main category, Category:Mexican musical groups, is not pupulated enough to even have subcategories, and even if it was, this is still too much. ---> Sagitario 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These categories integrate the American groups into the global categories by genre. CalJW 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Accurate and fits well with parent categories. With the amount of Mexican musical groups it should eventually be well populated. --Vizcarra 06:40, 25 January 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 page.

Category:Mexican musical groups by time period edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded overcategorization; The main category, Category:Mexican musical groups, is not pupulated enough to even have subcategories, and even if it was, this is still too much. ---> Sagitario 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good accurate categorisation. It is useful to be given a clue as to the identiry of each group in a category like Category:1990s musical groups - such categories will be vast in the future and almost useless unless broken down further. CalJW 04:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Accurate and fits well with parent categories. With the amount of Mexican musical groups it should eventually be well populated. --Vizcarra 06:35, 25 January 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 page.

Category:Canadian official residences to Category:Official residences in Canada edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the Australian high commissioners residence in Canberra into this, and then realised that the name is ambiguous. The proposed form leaves no doubt the category is based on the location of the building and most similar categories already use it. Merchbow 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename "X in X" is the convention for buildings and structures. CalJW 04:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that "Canadian official residences" does not conform to convention and is ambiguous, the suggestion made here does not reflect the interpretation currently used by the category. "Official residences in Canada" implies the official residence of any official (Canadian or foreign), whereas the usage implies only the official residences of Canadian officials. "Official residences in Canada" can well be a category, but this particular collection of related articles does not fall exclusively into that category. What convention is used for other countries? Would Category:Official residences of Canadians work? --RealGrouchy 05:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed and create a Canadian equivalent of Category:American embassies abroad as a complement if necessary (but it would need to cover high commissions_. Choalbaton 20:01, 31 January 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 page.

Category:American publishers edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to category:American publishers (people) --Kbdank71 14:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - better to use two more specific categories such as Category:Book publishers and Category:United States organizations. See Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Professions subcategorized by Nationality. ··gracefool |☺ 01:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Those are two less specifc categories and in any case it looks like it is a category for people. I will start populating it. It will then need to be renamed category:American publishers (people). I will also do a group renaming to try to sort out the people (publishers) and publishing companies problem, which has not been addressed systematically. As for the broader point, the categorisation of people by nationality and occupation is very well established and very useful. CalJW 03:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, that makes sense along with the other renames you propose. ··gracefool |☺ 05:19, 25 January 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 page.

Category:Wagnerites edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable in most cases and insignificant. There is a section on the Richard Wagner page called "Wagner's influence and legacy". This information belongs there. Most of the articles that populate this category are of people with little connection to the music world. That they might like Wagner is trivia. Theres no Category:Oasis fans or Category:Miles Davis fans either. D.M. ^(talk) 01:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are, I think, mistaken. This category is not about "fans of Wagner". Wagnerism was a movement which brought together a range of individuals in a cultural ideology with political implications. Wagner was, of course, not just a composer but a theorist and ideologist. Shaw believed Wagnerian ideas would help construct a socialist culture. Hitler believed he was a prophet of Nazism. Almost all the figures listed here are people who were part of the Wagnerian movement in one form or another, as musicians who promoted Wagner and Wagnerism, or or as creative writers and cultural commentators who incorporated it into their ideas. A few stray "mere fans" have found their way in, but they can be removed. All the relevant names are entirely verifiable. Paul B 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. ··gracefool |☺ 02:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. CalJW 04:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain of course. It is simply untrue that the names on this list have no connection with the music world. Every single one of them that is there at the time of writing, has a definite such connection, either as notable performers of, supporters of, or writers on Wagner. It is wrong to compare Wagnerites to Oasis or Miles Davis fans because 'Wagnerism' was, and is, a definite mocvement associated with Wanger's ideas and music. Those listed are therefore of interest and relevance to musicologists, musical historians and opera lovers. That they are of no interest to those proposing to delete the category is neither here nor there.--Smerus 06:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are the ones who make the decision and insulting us won't help you. Cover it in the article. Sumahoy 07:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I apologise if I have said anything which you have taken as insulting - I try always to be polite - but your response is a bit confusing to me - please explain to me, and to other voters, who we are, and exactly what I should cover in which article --Smerus 07:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the few cases where a category for fans or followers of a particular musician is warranted. Wagner has fascinated a very interesting crowd, which is well-documented in this category containing people whose Wagnerism is widely known, e.g. Ludwig II of Bavaria, Thomas Mann and Adolf Hitler. Totally verifiable in most of the category's entries. Kusma (討論) 07:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And not an appropriate defining characteristic in cases such as Bernard Levin and Michael Portillo, though their love of Wagner is well known. Thus I have no confidence in the category and consider it to be a source of category clutter. CalJW 07:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - CalJW, you seem to be changing your ground. If your objections are limited to only some of the people in the category, and you accept that there are 'appropriate defining characterisitics' for Wagnerites, you should direct your editing to the contents, not to elimination of the category itself. --Smerus 07:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think "no confidence" (read as "no confidence in that it will be maintained properly in the future") and "category clutter" are a clear condemnation. Categories which will require constant vigilance should only be kept if they are important. This category is not important in my opinion. CalJW 08:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for this clarification. As regards 'no confidence' I will just point out that the category has hardly been up for a week, so one might allow a reasonable period of time before coming to a conclusion on this. --Smerus 09:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wagnerism was a major cultural movement in the period of roughly 1860-1950, with the establishment of numerous Wagner societies and the publication of a very large number of books on Wagner at one period (more than anyone other than Jesus and Napoleon, claims Magee). The implications of Wagner's work were explored in literature and were articulated as part of socio-political ideologies. Wagnerism is undoubtedly a notable phenomenon. Paul B 10:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify, per the above. May be interesting, but the characteristic is not obvious from the people themselves. Radiant_>|< 11:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, what does "obvious from the people themselves" mean? It will not be obvious to contributors who have no interest in Wagnerism, but I assure you that it's pretty clear to people who do. Any list of names will seem arbitrary to someone who is unaware of what links them together. Paul B 12:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that doesn't make it an appropriate use of the category system. People should be in categories based on who they are or what they do, not what they are interested in. CalJW 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure that there is a clear distinction between what people are and what they are interested in. People in this category should be here if their "interest" in Wagner became part of their belief-system. Paul B 16:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wagnerism was a political and idealogical movement. People who were/are just fans of Wagner's music and not followers of his ideas should be removed. Arniep 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not about music alone as noted above, but the movement. 'Fans' of his music alone should be removed. Doc 13:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ill-defined category. It will always include too dissimilar entries, people associated with Wagner in totally different ways: singers who performed his music, fans, conductors he worked with, authors who may have been influenced by his works decades after his death, etc. To say that Wagnerism was a real movement doesn't help at all, I think, because it's a very vague thing as well - ranging from a kind of political idealism to a personality cult. Making a list has the same problems. Instead it would be better to expand the influence and legacy section into a separate article on the influence of Wagner, or add some of the names to Wagnerism, because then it's at least possible to indicate why, how, in what ways these people should be considered Wagnerites. David Sneek 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, David Sneek! On these grounds one would put up for deletion, for example, Category:Marxists ....Any category can become 'degraded' by the addition of inappropriate content. If you want to find out in what ways these people are Wagnerites, look at the articles. If the articles don't convince you these people should be classified as 'Wagnerites' - get editing! - isn't that what Wikipedia is about? --Smerus 09:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, Smerus. Category:Marxists uses a clear-cut definition - "...people who have publicly identified themselves as Marxist..." - which is lacking for Category:Wagnerites, which speaks of a notable "attachment". And my point is that in the case of Wagnerism such a definition does not exist, because the word may refer to anything from fandom to an aesthetic sensibility or a political Weltanschauung. David Sneek 11:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (p.s.: I wouldn't object if the definition was "...people who have publicly identified themselves as Wagnerite...", but that would almost completely empty the category.)[reply]

I still advise caution, DS. I have just looked at Category:Marxists and have found a ragbag which makes Category:Wagnerites look conspicuouosly rigorous by comparison. Apart from the fact that it includes Karl Marx himself, I find the following: Stephen Jay Gould whose article reveals that he explicitly denied he was a Marxist; Ward Churchill who has written on Marxism, amnogst other topics, but has not 'publicly identified' as a Marxist; European Radicals in Sri Lanka, some of whom may have been Marxists, but no evidence is given as to how many, or who; H. Bruce Franklin who from his article seems to be clearly a Maoist, not a Marxist; Jacques Camatte whose article says he explicitly renounced Marxism; Lewis Gordon whose article does not give any indication that he is a Marxist, still less that he has 'publicly identified himself' as one....doubtless there are other debatable people in the cateogry, these are just the few I hsve examined. 'Public identification' is not the criterion for 'Wagnerites', and I see you don't actually dispute the 'notable attachment' of those who are listed there.

If this argument centres, as it seems to, on rigor of attributing people to categories, then it goes to the heart of debate about categories themselves. Clearly categories need to be edited/policed in the same way that articles need to be edited/policed. But the fact that (as in this case) some people seem to have a distaste or contempt for the category should not be, by itself, a criterion for its removal. Nor is the fact that it may be abused by having inappopriate people included - as is the case with , e.g. Category:Marxism. The terms for the category have been stated. It is clearly a relevant category for some. I, like many who have voted here, am keen to see that it is not abused. It remains to me unclear what is to be gained, in WP terms, by deleting it.--Smerus 12:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Paul B and Smerus above. It is not just about fanatics, but a whole idealogical movement. M A Mason 15:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per smerus - It would be simply absurd to delete a category not only recognised in musicological study but accepted as having relevance beyond the bounds of music alone. GS(v) 09:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Smerus, Paul B, and Arniep. Defrosted 15:43, 31 January 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 page.