Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7

< August 6	August 8 >

August 7

Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories

Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: These three were nominated together a couple of months ago and as is often the case, the multiple nomination ended after this discussion with "no consensus" despite strong arguments to delete each one separately. I agree with the prior nominator's position then that per the discussion on Consistent Palestinian naming standards, the political term "Palestinian territories" should be used on socio-political cats, but that geographic cats, which are static regardless of who controls the area, would be dealt with according to uncontroversial geographic terms, "Gaza Strip" and "West Bank". Currently these categories are serving as a nonfunctional extra layer above the existent Gaza Strip and West Bank hierarchy, and thus they should be deleted. This position has only strengthened in light of recent events that call into question any unity between the Gaza Strip and West Bank, which only reinforces the wisdom of using those geographically neutral terms rather than Wikipedia taking a position or expressing a point of view that they two (are, ought to be, pick another verb) categorically together. In light of the prior confused debate, these are being nominated separately, because some editors expressed differing opinions on the different cats, let's see if we can find some consensus on some of them this time round. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there will be consensus to get rid of 2 of the categories. I believe the geography category should be kept. I think it is disingenuous on your part to insist "Palestinian territories" is not a geographical name. The geographical meaning of the name is by far the most common meaning for the name. Especially in the mainstream media.--Timeshifter 22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't participate (or even look at) the previous debate, but having now read that and the project discussion, I agree with User:Timeshifter that the last nomination (and hence this one) misrepresented the project discussion, with which these categories seem perfectly in accord to me. The project proposal, which generally met with consensus, was that:

"Topics related to the general region are to use the term "Palestinian territories", and "Topics related to one of the two main regional divisions, West Bank and the Gaza Strip, should make use of those restricted regional terms". Clearly, the sub-cats follow the second case, but these cats the first. It would seem ridiculous to me to have only the Gaza and West Bank cats. Just because we have categories for US states, or England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, does not mean that US or British parent cats are "non-functional" and should be deleted. And in the Palestinean case there is not even a formal constitutional divide between the two areas, whatever the current situation on the ground. Johnbod 22:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this is analogous to creating a USSR category to overarch the 15 independent places, because it used to be related or categories for German Empire and put in whatever is now in another country that belonged to that entity, or variious categories related to former, future (mindful of WP:CRYSTAL) or hoped-for "countries": Kurdistan, Greater Armenia, Biafra, Confederate States of America, and a single unit called Palestine too. Carlossuarez46 00:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does that tie in to the Project concensus; they talk of "regional divisions"? I wasn't aware that the UN, US or anybody recognised two Palestinian states. Should articles about the geography of Alaska or Hawaii be kept outside the US categories? Johnbod 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being confused by the "regional division" language, since the categories are already included on the basis of whether they relate to government (Category:Palestinian National Authority), general society (Category:Palestinian territories), and specific geographic entity (Category:West Bank, Category:Gaza Strip). Tewfik^Talk 20:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[For Carlossuarez46]: What is your motivation in all this? Is your goal to eliminate the name "Palestinian territories" from category names? It is a contemporary name for an area and a people. So your comparison to names for old historic areas such as the USSR or the German Empire is unfounded. Google "Palestinian territories" in Google News and see that it is a contemporary name: http://news.google.com/news?q=palestinian+territories - Even the Israeli media frequently use the term "Palestinian territories." They are using the term geographically, too. See also this July 17, 2007 BBC Country profile: ""Country profile: Israel and Palestinian territories". See the map there. Ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine if people there think that "Palestinian territories" does not apply to the territories of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. --Timeshifter 00:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see Category:Kurdistan and all those territories inhabited mainly by Kurds. They also have internal squabbling, and they are under the rule of various governments. Palestinian territories is a similar territorial name. Palestinians have lots of internal squabbling, and they are also under the rule of various authorities. See the article Palestinian territories.

Encyclopædia Britannica: Kurdistan - traditional region, an extensive plateau and mountain area inhabited mainly by Kurds, including large parts of what are now eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia.--Timeshifter 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, geography categories can contain some useful subcategories. Such as maps and satellite pictures. See Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories and Category:Satellite pictures of the Palestinian territories. So the geography category is not just a "nonfunctional extra layer above the existent Gaza Strip and West Bank hierarchy". I am less concerned about keeping Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories and Category:Buildings and structures in the Palestinian territories. I will go with whatever the consensus is on those 2 categories.--Timeshifter 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that particular category to be quite problematic. I strongly suggest you do not use "Kurdistan" as a rationale for the sake of avoiding flamewars. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very poor way to construct a rationale. -- Cat ^chi? 17:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you have a problem with Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Dictionary.com. Here are some more examples:

Columbia Encyclopedia: Kurds - a non-Arab Middle Eastern minority population that inhabits the region known as Kurdistan, an extensive plateau and mountain area in SW Asia (c.74,000 sq mi/191,660 sq km), including parts of E Turkey, NE Iraq, and NW Iran and smaller sections of NE Syria and Armenia.

Dictionary.com: Kurdistan - An extensive plateau region of southwest Asia. Since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, it has been divided among southeast Turkey, northeast Iraq, and northwest Iran, with smaller sections in Syria and Armenia.--Timeshifter 22:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have problems with this category. I won't be baited into discussing this Kurdistan thing here. I consider your attitude to be highly disturbing. -- Cat ^chi? 23:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Highly disturbing". Ominous music begins now... You insisted on arguing the point. I replied. --Timeshifter 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons which Carlos has articulated, and per Consistent Palestinian naming standards which I helped shape. The category only serves as a needless upper-level to Category:Geography of the Gaza Strip and Category:Geography of the West Bank, which are actual geographic areas, and presumes a hypothetical Geography of the Palestinian territories, which is a disambiguation page, since Palestinian territories is more a political term than a geographic one. Tewfik^Talk 20:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Shuki 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ditto. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dittoheads" commonly means followers of a certain talk show host here in the USA. :) Note that this page is called "Categories for discussion." So what is YOUR reasoning? --Timeshifter 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral geographical names should be used not controversial political names. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Wikipedia uses the names in common use. "Palestinian territories" is the common name for the territories mainly inhabited by Palestinians. Imagine that. The news media is using the most logical name for the combination of those 2 territories, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. What is political about that for the average person? The majority inhabitants are Palestinians, are they not? They are territories, not sovereign states. Thus, "Palestinian territories". We use "Hawaii" for those pieces of land. We use "Bahamas" for those pieces of land. Those are the common names. Wikipedia does not make up names for them. --Timeshifter 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Palestinian Territories is the accepted geographic term for the West Bank and Gaza (why on earth would you want to completely seperate them?), whilst Palestinian National Authority is used for political categories. Number 5 7 08:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines: 8. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. - when it comes to geography, the "Palestinian territories" is a controversial term because it is a political and not a geographic one, and is not self-evident because the territories in question are a subject of future negotiations or whatever happens in the future. See WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that some people have no problem with understanding what people are referring to geographically when the names West Bank and Gaza Strip are used. But when using the common term naming them together, "Palestinian territories", they automatically assume the whole world uses the term politically. That is ridiculous. Just like when people worldwide use the term "English Channel" they are not asserting a political term to malign the French. Get real! The worldwide media use the term simply to refer to the geographical combination of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. See for yourself how the media uses the term: http://news.google.com/news?q=palestinian+territories --Timeshifter 13:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike WP, news outlets don't have (or don't uphold) NPOV policy and often have political agenda. Argumentum ad googlum doesn't work, especially to push POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny coming from you, probably the most well-known POV-pushing admin in this topic area. Rule #1 for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) states, "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." Please feel free to ignore this wikipedia guideline as you usually do in these naming discussions. --Timeshifter 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personally, I don't really think the POV in the phrase "Palestinian territories" is all that objectionable, especially after Oslo, but I'm a settler would disagree. I'm voting to delete simply because its redundant and unnecessary; like categorization simply for the sake of categorization. --GHcool 16:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it redundant? Have you actually looked at what is categorized in the category?--Timeshifter 22:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines: #8: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Media may use it. That would probably lead to a Palestinian territories, we do not create categories simply because media uses them. I think we should avoid trying to solve a problem the UN failed to solve by using categories. -- Cat ^chi? 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Using your logic we should delete the article Palestinian territories because YOU don't like the name. Even though it is a common name. Rule #1 for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) states, "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." You may think the name is controversial, but that does not allow you to delete it. And as for the items within the category there is nothing controversial about whether the items belong in Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories. Map categories are commonly put in geography categories. By the way, the UN uses the name "Palestinian territories" too. Just like the media. It is the job of the closing admin to ignore post-and-run votes at deletion discussions. So all these people who are basically just posting their dislike of Palestinians, via the name "Palestinian" being used on wikipedia, are irrelevant to this discussion. --Timeshifter 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to stay on topic. This is CFD - about a category and not about an article - so Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) is not applicable here. Unfortunately the UN has been a part of the conflict, and cannot be considered a neutral party. Intimidating opponents and violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND does not help your cause. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to make it up as you go along, Humus. Then sprinkle in some intimidating guidelines. Names are names. Whether in article or category names. --Timeshifter 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can have controversial titles (ideally they shouldn't but whatever). Palestine is more than a hazy area. It doesn't have solid borders. When you say "Palestinian territories" do you mean the historic are before Israel was formed (some Palestinians seek such a country), the original UN borders when Israel was first proposed and created (a good number of Palestinians seek this)? Current borders as Israel claims them? Or various other versions? When you can use non controversial names (something like Category:Gaza strip and west bank) why should you even insist on the controversial title? -- Cat ^chi? 21:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the article Palestinian territories to find out how the name is used, rather than making up your own definitions of the name. --Timeshifter 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe I am the first person to use the terms "Gaza Strip" and "West Bank". -- Cat ^chi? 22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And your point is...?--Timeshifter 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is ridiculous of the logic? It is an official guideline by the way not my logic. "CATEGORIES appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories" applies to CATEGORIES and not articles. -- Cat ^chi? 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a NAME. So naming guidelines apply. Not your biases, personal interpretations, etc.. --Timeshifter 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories" clearly applies to the categories name. Article naming guidelines apply neither to Mediawiki nor to Image nor to Template nor to Category namespace. -- Cat ^chi? 22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Says who? So then, it is YOUR personal choice of which wikipedia guidelines to apply? There are many controversial names used for categories. The same names used for articles. It is common. Names for wars, events, you-name-it. Wikipedia uses the common names.--Timeshifter 22:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines applies to all categories. Wikipedia uses the common names for articles. Categories are a different story as explained in the guideline. Your insistence to the contrary does not void the existence of a guideline that is written explicitly for categorization. -- Cat ^chi? 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Your insistence does not void the naming guidelines. They both apply. I have categorized many articles, categories, and images over a long time. I have had many discussions concerning categorization. On both wikipedia and the commons. --Timeshifter 23:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Palestinian territories" is a political, not geographic, term. For geographic features we have Category:Geography of the West Bank and Category: Geography of the Gaza Strip - using two well-defined geographic terms. -- uriber 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when the mainstream news media uses the name "Palestinian territories", as they frequently do, you do not know that they are using the common shorthand to indicate the combination of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? I believe most of the delete votes here are the ones making this political. Not the mainstream media. Many of the delete votes are allowing their personal dislike of the term to be used to disregard following the wikipedia naming guidelines. --Timeshifter 22:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Tewfik, Humus sapiens and my general belief that all categories whose contents are controversial are more trouble than they are worth and therefore should be deleted, and the controversy covered in the appropriate articles. Specifically in this case, "Palestinian territories" is a political term, especially in terms of what area it covers. 6SJ7 02:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories

Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: These three were nominated together a couple of months ago and as is often the case, the multiple nomination ended after this discussion with "no consensus" despite strong arguments to delete each one separately. I agree with the prior nominator's position then that per the discussion on Consistent Palestinian naming standards, the political term "Palestinian territories" should be used on socio-political cats, but that geographic cats, which are static regardless of who controls the area, would be dealt with according to uncontroversial geographic terms, "Gaza Strip" and "West Bank". Currently these categories are serving as a nonfunctional extra layer above the existent Gaza Strip and West Bank hierarchy, and thus they should be deleted. This position has only strengthened in light of recent events that call into question any unity between the Gaza Strip and West Bank, which only reinforces the wisdom of using those geographically neutral terms rather than Wikipedia taking a position or expressing a point of view that they two (are, ought to be, pick another verb) categorically together. In light of the prior confused debate, these are being nominated separately, because some editors expressed differing opinions on the different cats, let's see if we can find some consensus on some of them this time round Carlossuarez46 18:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments on the geography cat above. Johnbod 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonfunctional extra layer per the rationale articulated by Carlos. Tewfik^Talk 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Shuki 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Palestinian Territories is the accepted geographic term for the West Bank and Gaza (why on earth would you want to completely seperate them?), whilst Palestinian National Authority is used for political categories. Number 5 7 08:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this category serves any real purpose. It is just another layer. This vote is in contrast to my keep vote for Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories based on its usefulness as a geographic container category for subcategories of maps of the Palestinian territories, governorates (which include maps of the Palestinian territories), satellite pictures of the Palestinian territories, etc..--Timeshifter 13:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasoning as my vote for the deletion of Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories. --GHcool 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines: #8: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Media may use it. That would probably lead to a Palestinian territories, we do not create categories simply because media uses them. I think we should avoid trying to solve a problem the UN failed to solve by using categories. -- Cat ^chi? 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep The Palestinian territories exist. These articles should not be tossed out of the category system. Beorhtric 20:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary extra layer per Tewfik and Timeshifter. --MPerel 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Political naming masquerading as geography. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasoning as prior Cfd. 6SJ7 02:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures in the Palestinian territories

Category:Buildings and structures in the Palestinian territories - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: These three were nominated together a couple of months ago and as is often the case, the multiple nomination ended after this discussion with "no consensus" despite strong arguments to delete each one separately. I agree with the prior nominator's position then that per the discussion on Consistent Palestinian naming standards, the political term "Palestinian territories" should be used on socio-political cats, but that geographic cats, which are static regardless of who controls the area, would be dealt with according to uncontroversial geographic terms, "Gaza Strip" and "West Bank". Currently these categories are serving as a nonfunctional extra layer above the existent Gaza Strip and West Bank hierarchy, and thus they should be deleted. This position has only strengthened in light of recent events that call into question any unity between the Gaza Strip and West Bank, which only reinforces the wisdom of using those geographically neutral terms rather than Wikipedia taking a position or expressing a point of view that they two (are, ought to be, pick another verb) categorically together. In light of the prior confused debate, these are being nominated separately, because some editors expressed differing opinions on the different cats, let's see if we can find some consensus on some of them this time round Carlossuarez46 18:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments on the geography cat above. Johnbod 22:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonfunctional extra layer per the rationale articulated by Carlos. Tewfik^Talk 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Shuki 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Palestinian Territories is the accepted geographic term for the West Bank and Gaza, whilst Palestinian National Authority is used for political categories. Number 5 7 08:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this category serves any real purpose. It is just another layer. This vote is in contrast to my keep vote for Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories based on its usefulness as a geographic container category for subcategories of maps of the Palestinian territories, governorates (which include maps of the Palestinian territories), satellite pictures of the Palestinian territories, etc..--Timeshifter 13:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasoning as my vote for the deletion of Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories. --GHcool 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines: #8: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Media may use it. That would probably lead to a Palestinian territories, we do not create categories simply because media uses them. I think we should avoid trying to solve a problem the UN failed to solve by using categories. -- Cat ^chi? 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hacking the Palestinian categories to pieces does not look NPOV to me, it looks pro-Israel. Beorhtric 20:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A lack of a category is not a political message while the contrary can be. -- Cat ^chi? 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per my comment on the previous discussion. Beorhtric 20:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, unnecessary extra layer per Tewfik and Timeshifter. --MPerel 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comment on categories above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuratowski's Ghost (talk • contribs)

Category:Primrose Hill Gang

Category:Primrose Hill Gang - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete this ten-article category based on last year's fading neologism. The "Primrose Hill Gang" is a label which was used for a while in 2006 by some parts of the British news media to refer to a group of young rising stars in the Labour Party (UK), named after the trendy Primrose Hill suburb. The term seems to have been a sort-lived neologism (only 33 non-wikipedia ghits). There is no wikipedia article on the group (and no sign of one having been deleted), and the "gang" isn't even mentioned in the article on Primrose Hill. If the term is somehow revived, it would be best to start with an article which could list the people involved, but the category seems at best premature. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Faded flowers. Johnbod 22:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Crockspot 20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NEO, Tewfik^Talk 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Beorhtric 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States History

Merge / Redirect into Category:History of the United States, convention of Category:History by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod 22:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The articles in this category are already in their proper US categories. This category is simply extraneous. Hmains 01:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per nom, Tewfik^Talk 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per nom. --GHcool 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese mythology in anime

Propose renaming Category:Chinese mythology in anime to Category:Chinese mythology in anime and manga

Nominator's rationale: I am the creator of this category. This title is a mistake of mine, title should include manga, as the overlap of anime and manga would make categorizing them separately a bit of a nightmare. CaveatLector^Talk 13:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support can this be a speedy rename? 132.205.44.5 21:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per creator/nom. Johnbod 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, speedy if possible, for consistency with almost all similar categories, to avoid the obvious nightmares referred to by nom, and because it's being requested by the creator. Seems obvious, reasonable and non-controversial, and if not speedied, perhaps an early close per WP:SNOW (or even WP:IAR) would be appropriate? Xtifr _tälk 08:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom and relevant criteria. I would if I could :-) Tewfik^Talk 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom. --GHcool 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amphoe without coordinates

Note: An Amphoe is a sort of Thai district. This was a wanted category, populated by {{Infobox Amphoe}}. It seems to me that this is a WikiProject maintenance category and as such should be relegated to talk pages. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To talk per nom. Johnbod 13:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose per nom, Tewfik^Talk 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians

Category:Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete – minimal number of articles with no chance of category enlargement as members of this organisation must be notable in their own right to merit an article as per decision in this discussion. Notability of category subject is questionable as it is a research organisation that publishes findings for own members and is not a general publisher. --BlackJack

Keep This organisation is the leading authority on cricket statistics (and cricket is one of the world's largest sports and perhaps the most statistical). The work of the organisation is relevant to all cricket followers. The claim that the category cannot be expanded is extremely dubious in the present, and certainly wrong as to the future. Dominictimms 13:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That comment is not supposed to be in all bold, but there is a technical error. Dominictimms 13:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unbolding BlackJack's sig solved the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Firstly, my apologies for bolding the edit page. The Ledbetter AfD quoted above deleted numerous ACS-related articles because of non-notability. Those articles had been created by someone in the ACS who claimed that being an ACS committee member confers notability but the consensus here, in line with WP:Notability guidelines, is that membership of a group is insufficient and subjects must be notable in their own right outside the group. In fact there are only a handful of ACS members who are notable in their own right and so it is inconceivable that this category could expand by more than a couple of subjects. The ACS is not the leading authority on cricket statistics: that is Wisden Cricketers' Almanack. As BrownHairedGirl points out, the ACS has only 1000 members and yet cricket has arguably 1 billion fans worldwide: the ACS is really not that important and an article is surely sufficient coverage of it on Wikipedia. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians says "it has a worldwide membership of over 1000 and is open to anyone with a relevant interest", so membership is neither a defining attribute of those involved nor a guide to their importance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl (whose arguments impressed me more than nom's). In response to the arguments raised by Dominictimms, I'd say: those would be great arguments at AfD for keeping articles on the topic, but I don't think they apply to a category. The organization is clearly notable; individual memberships, however, are not. Xtifr _tälk 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG and WP:OCAT, Tewfik^Talk 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Membership is a defining characteristic of the people in the category. Beorhtric 20:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alphabet book series

Propose renaming Category:Alphabet book series to Category:Children's alphabet books

Nominator's rationale: Rename; broader scope would include all alphabet books (such as Animalia), which need their own category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to allow the inclusion of solitary books. ×Meegs 18:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rescope per nom, though I question whether the category should exist at all. Tewfik^Talk 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It will lessen the load on Category:Children's books and Category:Children's picture books considerably. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Tewfik. --GHcool 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Questions/Items/poeple that may have to do with the creation of the Universe

Delete, as awkward/obtuse/misspelled. Or at the very least please think of a better name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this mess. Vague & meaningless "may have to do with". Wryspy 02:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objective criteria for inclusion/exclusions. I gather from the articles categorized here that someone began at the letter A and never progressed; I would have thought that God might have been a good candidate for inclusion in such a category, but alas I forgot that God was not a question, item or people. Carlossuarez46 05:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pay attention, Carlos! According to this category, the correct spelling is poeple ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooops and God is a poeple! Good to see you back here. :-) Carlossuarez46 17:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless. –sebi 09:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - now the Dr is not around, who will record these gems? Johnbod 11:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He left a link to his collection, so I was bold and added this. I don't believe he'll mind. :) Xtifr _tälk 04:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dominictimms 13:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above (and add to WP:BJAODN). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sigh. How does something like this even survive long enough to make it to CfD? - Crockspot 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense, though I suppose we should be thankful for the amusement, Tewfik^Talk 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:People, places, things, actions, attributes, concepts and speculation that may or may not have anything to do wth the creation of this or any other universe, and make it a category redirect to Category:Categories. :) Xtifr _tälk 11:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - I can't bear the thought of snuffing out such a vital spark of creativity in its very infancy. Why, he's only up to letter 'A' at this point -- and it would be ever so much fun to see what else he'll come up with. Can't we take it out of the primary categories and move it over to Category:Wikipedia humor?? Cgingold 11:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure that more than two articles fit under this category, but I cannot imagine anybody applying this category to anything of actual importance such as God or the Big Bang Theory. --GHcool 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Auto racing terms

Category:NASCAR terms

Propose renaming Category:Auto racing terms to Category:Auto racing terminology

Propose renaming Category:NASCAR terms to Category:NASCAR terminology

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to the form that is standard across other sports. Craig.Scott 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to proposed titles. –sebi 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Motor racing terminology- or Category:Motorsport terminology per Royalbroil below (added) - and Category:NASCAR terminology respectively. Some global categories are still using the specifically-US term "Auto racing", while most have gone to the more neutral "Motor racing", which they all should do (unless US-only categories). Johnbod 11:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Motor racing terminology and Category:NASCAR terminology respectively per [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]. Dominictimms 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both. I like the words "NASCAR terminology". "Terminology" is clearer than "Terms". As for the general category, I think it should be Category:Motorsport terminology to agree with the naming convention used with WikiProject Motorsport. Motorsport has a better world view than "auto racing" or "motor racing". I am a member of WP:MOTOR and WP:NASCAR, and I will note this CFD discussion on the talk page of each WikiProject. Royalbroil 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I am inclined to agree with my fellow WikiProject member. I would not have any reservations about these relatively minor and sensible changes. Quite logical. Adrian M. H. 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Motorsport" is fine with me; I only saw "Motor racing" categories, so if this rename succeeds, we should maybe rename other categories to match the project. Johnbod 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, I don't think there was a very clear consensus as to which to use when I created these, so I just picked one or the other. If there is now, I don't have any objections to renaming them to match that. Recury 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, "terminology" is a clear improvement. As for what to call the first category, let me point out two things. First of all, renaming to "motorsports" would include a number of sports that would not current be included in this category, most notably, the entire tree at Category:Motorcycle sport, which is currently a sibling category. Also, not all motor sports involve racing, e.g. Tractor pulling or Freestyle Motocross. All of which means: I'm not quite sure what the right name is, but we may need some cleanup later, depending. In fact, browsing some of the related categories, I think we need some cleanup already, as several subcategories of Category:Racing sports are not, strictly, limited to racing. Xtifr _tälk 11:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do not have a problem including the terminology in the borderline "motorsports" that you suggested too. All are sports competitions that involve motors, and there is some crossover terminology that applies to all. As to moving the categories around, it should be discussed at WikiProject Motorsport. Please start a discussion there if you want to change things. The purpose of WikiProject is to "organise and improve the common areas between different motorsport projects; and improve aspects of motorsport that are not covered by other projects". The WikiProject has a group of members from a wide variety of motorsports backgrounds. Royalbroil 13:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Motor racing terminology and Category:NASCAR terminology. The greater breadth of "Motor racing" is an advantage of the category, not a weakness. Beorhtric 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Casualties of Battle of Karbala

Rename to Category:Battle of Karbala killed in action, convention of Category:Killed in action by conflict. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or delete So far only 1 article, though a couple more could be added. Johnbod 11:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rename per nom; this has already been populated with five categories, and it seems that there should be many more. Tewfik^Talk 20:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can still only see Hussein in the category? Johnbod 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I was looking at Category:Killed in action by conflict. In hindsight, there are only 3-4 notable dead in the battle, and so we should instead delete. Tewfik^Talk 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cinemas and movie theaters in Georgia

Propose renaming Category:Cinemas and movie theaters in Georgia to Category:Cinemas and movie theaters in Georgia (U.S. state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in line with the other categories for the U.S. state, to avoid confusion with the country. Abberley2 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to proposed title. –sebi 09:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Dominictimms 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per parent cat convention, Tewfik^Talk 20:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black and white village

Rename to Category:Black and white villages, or Delete as non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotes a footpath in Hertfordshire. Thus far less than the name suggests, but it cannot be expanded to cover all villages with lots of these buildings, as there is no way to define which villages should be included. Abberley2 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Abberley. –sebi 09:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & add names (sorry, name) to article. Johnbod 11:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic and a very confusing name as a category. A list (as it were) at the main article, as suggested by Johnbod, is a far better approach. Xtifr _tälk 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ample precedent, Tewfik^Talk 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]