Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 6

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caucasian American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This might come under WP:POINT, but I do not know the actual intent of the creator. I don't think WP generally classifies by nationality/race unless the race is a minority among the nationality because it's not a defining intersection for those to whom it applies. Zoporific 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete almost as many reasons as potential members Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keepi created it because all the other racial/ethnic groups have categories, asian actors, hispanic actos, african american actors, etc. In California, where most of the film industry of the english speaking world is, caucasian americans are a minority, most people in california are not caucasian, and the largest group is hispanic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In California ... caucasian americans are a minority." I don't think that's right. Zoporific 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Real data can be seen at California#Racial and ancestral makeup. Pairadox (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, and it says 60.9% are "White American" with 35.5% "Hispanic or Latino (of any race)". How this makes Caucasians a smaller group than Hispanics, I don't see. Zoporific 05:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the guideline is not "minority", but whether a head article could be written (i.e., a notable and referenced topic) for the category. See WP:CATGRS. --Lquilter (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The relevant guideline is CATGRS, which doesn't specify "minority", per se, but whether or not a head topic article could reasonably be written for the gender/race/sexuality intersection category. If there are reasonable numbers of cites discussing the unique issues that face caucasian american actors, then let's see them so we can determine whether they would support a head article per WP:CATGRS. --Lquilter (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity classification. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining intersection of characteristics which have no bearing on each other. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lquilter. Snocrates 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was rename this plus child cats, to the nominated form. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Table tennis clubs to Category:Table tennis organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Clubs" is too narrow/specific for the available articles to be categorized. If enough actual clubs have articles eventually, a new clubs subcat can be created for them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was listify. Per Bearcat's observation, a good place for the remaining lists would be the parent articles, as opposed to new, separate articles. Kbdank71 14:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the 28th Ministry in Canada to

• Category:Members of the 28th Ministry of Canada or
• Category:Members of the 28th Canadian Ministry or
• Category:Members of the Twenty-Eighth Canadian Ministry

Nominator's rationale: This is a test nomination that includes only one of 28 "Members of..." categories in Category:Members of the Cabinet of Canada. The first option replaces "in Canada" with "of Canada"; the second matches the title of the main article; and the third matches the bolded title in the lead section of the main article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, I think these categories should actually be replaced with lists instead; categorizing people by each individual cabinet in which they served strikes me as the political equivalent of an OCAT-violating performer by performance category. A list also better contextualizes the information, since it can actually annotate who held which role, who got shuffled from one role to another, and on and so forth. And long-serving cabinet ministers, such as Herb Gray or C. D. Howe, end up filed in three or four of these at once, leading to category clutter. And to the best of my knowledge, no other country on Wikipedia categorizes its cabinet officials this way. Listify and delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's a good plan of action, and if this discussion closes as "listify" I will nominate the 27 other similar categories for listification. As for whether other countries have similar categories ... the only instances I could find were Category:George W. Bush Administration cabinet members and Category:Clinton Administration cabinet members. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Bearcat's comments — Members not part of the Cabinet have been handed portfolios after the start date of the Ministry, and others have been removed from Cabinet entirely without an new Ministry being formed. Since the list already exists, delete. - J Greb (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify/delete per Bearcat's wise comments. Of course, don't delete until listification can be performed. Snocrates 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, ministries 1-4 and 26-28 are already listified on their parent articles; numbers 5-25 have stub parents that don't currently provide the list. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy redirected per WP:NC. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Goffstown, New Hampshire, USA to Category:Goffstown, New Hampshire

Category:People of Goffstown, New Hampshire, USA to Category:People from Goffstown, New Hampshire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per standard naming conventions and main article Goffstown, New Hampshire. Zoporific 23:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this. The rename sounds good to me. Should I go and rename everything by hand or is there an automated way to do it? ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bots will do this after the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be closed under WP:SNOW as a rename as nominated? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really could have gone to speedy. But consider it done, at any rate. God bless AWB. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 14:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Shipwrecks in Pearl Harbor to Category:World War II shipwrecks in the Pacific Ocean

Nominator's rationale: Unlike Category:World War II shipwrecks in the South China Sea, which applies to a moderately large geographic area and contains 30+ articles, this is a fairly narrow intersection (Pearl Harbor constitutes a miniscule percentage of the total area of the Pacific Ocean) that currently includes two articles and has limited potential for growth, barring any accidents or another world war. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Neutral: The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a very notable event, and it is therefore highly likely that readers are going to be interested in what ships lie at the bottom of it. The former should simply be a subcat of the latter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since not every ship that was sunk is currently a shipwreck (or is not in Pearl Harbor, in the case of the USS Oklahoma), wouldn't Attack on Pearl Harbor be more informative in that respect? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point, but I still don't agree with this nomination; cf. follow-on material below: what do we actually need? Seems indeterminate at present. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. What is really needed here? A category for the ships damaged? A category for the ships in the harbor during the attack? A category for the ships sunk? Isn't there only 1 or 2 shipwrecks in the harbor? If it is only intended for the last, the a merge is not unreasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that this is a category for the fourth/last purpose only: ships that were sunk and not salvaged. (At least that's what the title implies, but I've notified the category creator so that he may be able to shed more light on the issue.) ... For the first and second cases – ships damaged and ships present, respectively – I think that a list would be better than a category; there is a question of how defining it is for a ship to have been damaged in the Pearl Harbor attack (that, of course, varies with the severity of the damage) and of how defining it is for a ship to have been in the harbour during the attack (not very defining, unless it was heavily damaged or sunk). For the third case: a number of ships were sunk during the attack, but most – indeed, if I'm not mistaken, all but the two in this category – were subsequently salvaged and so are not shipwrecks. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Ships sunk during WWII in Pearl Harbor or Category:Ships sunk during WWII the territorial waters of Hawaii 70.55.85.35 (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Less than a handfull of ships were actually sunk at Pearl Harbor. Dimadick (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. There will only be two. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, but only because there is little room for expansion. For the record, though, the 'narrow intersection' argument is bunk here; I offer Category:Shipwrecks in Ironbottom Sound and Category:Shipwrecks in Scapa Flow as other examples where the intersection of shipwreck + a very specific geographic location is certainly relevant due to the historical events that caused the ships to be sunk in those locations. Further, I would argue strongly that it is certainly a defining characteristic to have even been present at the Pearl Harbor attacks—and Category:Attack on Pearl Harbor seems to agree with me. Regardless, potential for growth is admittedly nil. Maralia (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, we don't seem to have a category tree based on Shipwrecks by specific engagement, so this merge makes sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Mmmm, Babka. Kbdank71 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Nakba to Category:1948 Palestinian exodus

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category name should use English and should match main article, which is 1948 Palestinian exodus. Non-English names should generally only be used for categories when the main article uses a non-English name. Zoporific 23:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The proposed tithe is far clearer on what is included. Dimadick (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename as it's a one-sided POV name. IZAK (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename per above. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep' The term Nakba is widely used by Palestinians when writing in English about the consequences of 1948. See, for instance, Nakba.org, The Nakba Archive, Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe (1948) and many more. It is used, in English and Hebrew, by Israeli activists who recognise the effects of 1948 ("Zochrot ("Remembering") is a group of Israeli citizens working to raise awareness of the Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948). It is used in the title of serious academic studies [1], [2]. There is already a Wikipedia article on Nakba Day. The concept of Nakba is far broader than simply the exodus in 1948, and refers to a total discontinuity in Palestinian society. It is likely to be used much more frequently this year, the 60th anniversary of the events of 1948. The category should be kept, and we probably need a new article on the Nakba itself. RolandR (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "The" Nakba does refer to this initial event of the 1948 exodus. While "Nakba" without the article may refer to a general discontinuity that has its origin in this event, the purpose of this category, judging by its parents, etc., seems to be for the Nakba. A category for the more general sense would have to be Category:Nakba. Snocrates 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't you check your spelling? Ever heard of Babka?IZAK (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmmm, Babka. Snocrates 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match main article which is 1948 Palestinian exodus. --MPerel 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 14:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Israeli war crimes to Category:War crimes in Israel

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate categories. Target category uses standard naming convention for Category:War crimes by country. Zoporific 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - semantically not duplicates - but near as makes little difference apart from the POV and emotive element. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge naming per convention of Category:War crimes by country. On a larger level, who determines that any of the events in any of those categories qualifies for inclusion? In Category:War crimes in the United States do people get to add the Second Gulf War if it suits them? or Vietnam War? Without some objective standard all these war crimes categories are no more than "allegations of" and ought to be revisited. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would suggest it should require being convicted in a domestic or international court of committing a war crime, but that standard is likely to be shot down by those who love including Kissinger et al. in the categories. I don't see why it should be any different than other crime/criminal categories though — no conviction = no inclusion. Zoporific 05:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply that should be the standard and things ought to be removed that fail that standard. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. IZAK (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge per above. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category is pov and therefore doesn't respect WP:NPoV. Ceedjee (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and agree with the principle of no conviction, no inclusion. Using this principle, many of the articles included in Category:War crimes by country could probably be removed from the subcategories, and a few of the categories could probably be completely depopulated! Snocrates 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per convention per nom. --MPerel 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Origin beliefs to Category:Creation myths

Nominator's rationale: Per Talk:Creation_myth#Requested_move:_Creation_myth. Since the article has been moved, its corresponding cat should be renamed. Ben (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. "Creation myth" is a much more common term anyway. Dimadick (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match main article. Snocrates 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was rename, to match parent. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Berkeley to Category:Companies based in Berkeley, California

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Happy Anniversary! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not sure what this category is supposed to be but I can't imagine a good reason to keep it around. Pichpich (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I started that category because {{User Wiki age}} adds it when there has been a year when you registered on Wikipedia. You can read the edit summary why I created it. If this gets deleted, that userbox should be modified. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete may be a WP:UCFD discussion, but not worthy of keeping wherever we discuss that matter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carlos. This is the edit to the userbox that would need to be reversed. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete and SALT as unilateral recreation of deleted material. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Green Lanterns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete and likely salt as recreation of deleted category. See previous CfDs here and here. J Greb (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I depopulated it in preparation of a G4 speedy. However, the nominator suggested nomination here in order to determine the question of salting. - jc37 12:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Also, though I was acting based on previous consensus (per my note above), my personal opinion is that the GLC is different than the other "team" cats, which were initially deleted in a group nom, and I would like to see discussion regarding that as well. This isn't some informal grouping (a "team"). It's an intergalactic police force of a sort. This seems more to fall under "profession" at the very least, than just "team member". - jc37 12:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While jc37 makes a good point, the last deletion was just a month ago. We have to delete this prompt recreation. Doczilla (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with NaCl to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt - clearly this is a category that is going to be created again and again and again. Should have been salted last time. There is no reason why a list of Green Lanterns shouldn't serve for this team's membership the way it does for any other team. While it's been a while since I've read comics, my recollection is that such groups as Global Guardians and some incarnations of the Justice League served as a form of global police force operating under UN sanction, as did the Avengers for some significant portion of their history. Avengers even get paid for being Avengers. Lists serve for these groups. A list can also include such information as first and last appearance and a brief biographical sketch for those GLs who are not notable enough for their own articles. Otto4711 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but you forget that the only reason a Green Lantern is a superhero is because he/she is a Green Lantern. Without the ring and lantern, they are normal. Whereas all the other super teams are already superheroes/superpowered and team up. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 13:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Professions to Category:Occupations

Nominator's rationale: Merge, the distinction between profession and occupation is subjective. The current contents of this category make no sense at all, and it would be a waste of time to try to improve it. Any artificial division that might be temporarily determined would not be sustainable, as other users might decide to give favoured roles an "upgrade" from occupation to profession at any time. Postlebury (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Even if we were talking about the socio/historical set of occupations deemed "professions" (which we're not, since this includes animal trainers, law speakers, and so on), that's not a manageable criteria for categories -- the whole point of professional studies is in part to look at how some occupations (nursing, library science) get upgraded or downgraded and why. --Lquilter (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively per both - but there are very many of these that are in a sub-cat of Occupations already - Of counsel, Patent attorney etc. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the distinction if ever there was one is gone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The professions cat had some original meaning until everyone decided their occupation deserved to also be thought of as a profession. Deet (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. A small sample shows that the articles here are also categorized properly in their own "world heritage sites in country" category. Kbdank71 14:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World Heritage Sites in the Arab States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:World Heritage Sites already organizes these by country. There's no need for this additional multi-state division, especially since no other multi-state divisions (e.g., by continent) even exist. Zoporific 05:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Postlebury (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overlapping categorization like this is not helpful. Note also that many of these sites have nothing to do with the Arab civilization so one can't really argue that the category is a meaningful classification. Pichpich (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify - as other continents etc are. Category is far from complete. Africa has a category though - off Category:World Heritage Sites Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:World Heritage Sites (and then by country) (or delete if they are all already in country cats which might well be the case after looking at several). (Africa does have a category there but so do Zimbabwe, Sudan etc, not apparently subcats of Africa.) Carminis (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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